































































































































































































































































































































































































































































. 




























































. 























































































































































































64 ™/sm°on S8 1 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES { 


McCUNTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


REPORT 

ON 

THE CLAIM OF McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 
AGAINST THE ISTHMIAN CANAL COMMISSION, SUB¬ 
MITTED TO THE SENATE PURSUANT TO 
ACT OF CONGRESS OF JUNE 24, 1914 


By 

HON. GEORGE W. GOETHALS 

GOVERNOR OF THE PANAMA CANAL 



March 18, 1916. — Referred to the Committee on Appropriations 
and ordered to be printed 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
1916 







M 7stSe*ZT S \ HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES { D £ O o ^ 0 T 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


REPORT 


ON 

THE CLAIM OF McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 
AGAINST THE ISTHMIAN CANAL COMMISSION. SUB¬ 
MITTED TO THE SENATE PURSUANT TO g /J 
ACT OF CONGRESS OF JUNE 24. 1914 


S9X 


By 


HON. GEORGE W. GOETHALS 

GOVERNOR OF THE PANAMA CANAL 


ft 


* ,i, - 

■V*. ry 









MARCH 18, 1916.— Referred to the Committee on Appropriations 
and ordered to be printed 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
1916 


































o. Of D„ 
APR 8 19(6 





CLAIM OF M’CLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO . 1 


February 11, 1916. 

The Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington , D. C. 

Sir: The act of June 24, 1914, provides: 

That Colonel George W. Goethals, governor of the Canal Zone and formerly 
chairman and chief engineer of the Isthmian Canal Commission, is hereby author¬ 
ized and directed to investigate the claims of the McClintic-Marshall Construc¬ 
tion Company, a corporation of the State of Pennsylvania, having its principal 
office in the city of Pittsburgh, in said State, and to ascertain what amount, 
if any, is in justice, equity, and fairness due and owing to the said McClintic- 
Marshall Constructon Company from the Isthmian Canal Commission for work 
and labor done and materials furnished in connection with the construction and 
erection of lock gates and appurtenances for the Panama Canal, and in con¬ 
nection with or incidental to the doing of the work and furnishing of the 
material provided for in a certain contract between the Isthmian Canal Com¬ 
mission and said McClintic-Marshall Construction Company dated June twenty- 
first, nineteen hundred and ten, taking into consideration the claim of the con¬ 
tractors that the work was done under requirements as to character and finish 
not fairly within the meaning of the specifications. 

The said Colonel George W. Goethals, governor of the Canal Zone, is further 
authorized and empowered, either personally or through such commission as he 
may appoint, to investigate such claims and the various items thereof in such 
manner as to him may seem best, and either personally or through such com¬ 
mission is hereby empowered to administer oaths and affirmations to witnesses 
and to issue subpoenas and to compel the attendance of witnesses. He shall 
report in detail to the Congress of the United States his findings. 

I transmit herewith the report of a commission appointed under 
paragraph 2 of the act of June 24, 1914, quoted above, composed of 
Mr. H. H. Rousseau, engineer of terminal construction of the Pan¬ 
ama Canal, chairman; Mr. H. A. A. Smith, auditor of the Panama 
Canal, member; and Mr. B. F. Harrah, special counsel and examiner 
of claims of the Panama Canal, member. 

The report upon such claims made by said commission is approved 
by me, and for the reasons stated in detail in said report I recom¬ 
mend that the sum of $714,007.39 be paid to the McClintic-Marshall 
Construction Co. as the amount which “in justice, equity, and fair¬ 
ness is due and owing to the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. 
from the Isthmian Canal Commission for work and labor done and 
materials furnished in connection with the construction and erection 
of lock gates and appurtenances for the Panama Canal, and in con¬ 
nection with or incidental to the doing of the work and furnishing 
of the material provided for in a certain contract between the Isthmian 
Canal. Commission and the said McClintic-Marshall Construction 
Co., dated June twenty-first, nineteen hundred and ten, taking into 
consideration the claim of the contractor that the work was done 
under requirements as to character and finish not fairly within the 
meaning of the specifications.” 


X A11 references to pages refer to original copy. 


3 





4 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


The amount which I recommend for payment is considered and 
recommended as a full, final, and complete settlement of all claims 
which the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. has under the con¬ 
tract referred to in the act of June 24, 1914, quoted above, and as 
all that in justice, equity, and fairness is due and owing to said com¬ 
pany and that it should be required to accept the same as such before 
payment to it is authorized. 

The detailed report to which reference is made and which is ap¬ 
proved by me as the report in detail and findings, which I am required 
by said act to transmit to the Congress, consists of the findings and 
conclusion of the commission appointed to investigate said claims 
and a report in detail in two parts, from pages 1 to 480, inclusive, 
on the various claims. 

These findings and the “ Report in detail,” approved by me as a 
just, equitable, and fair settlement of said claims, are submitted as a 
full compliance with the act of June 24, 1914. 

The evidence referred to in the report in detail and upon which 
the findings are based is on file in the office of the Panama Canal. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Geo. W. Goethals, 
Governor the Panama Canal. 


Balboa Heights, January 10 , 1916. 
Maj. Gen. George W. Goethals, 

Governor of the Panama Canal , 

Balhon Heights , Canal Zone. 

Sir: We, the undersigned committee, appointed by you to investi¬ 
gate the claim of the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co., under 
the act of June 24, 1914 (38 Stats., 388), herewith submit our report 
in connection with such investigation. 

Our report will be submitted under the following general head¬ 
ings: 

1. Reference to and quotation of the law authorizing the investi¬ 
gation. 

2. Reference to claim presented by McClintic-Marshall Construc¬ 
tion Co. and statement of the claims made. 

3. Appointment of the committee and quotation of a letter making 
the appointment; also quotation of a letter showing the change in 
the status of B. F. Harrah. 

4. History of the claim and how it originated. (Under this head¬ 
ing a reference will be made to the original circular, various modifi¬ 
cations therein, the original contract, and the various modifications 
in the original contract.) 

5. Statement of the work that has been done, giving a reference 
to the testimony that has been taken and the data that has been 
accumulated in connection with the investigation. 

6. A statement of the general principles which the committee has 
applied in the investigation of the claims made. 

7. Findings of fact and conclusions of law, and recommendation 
as to the action to be taken upon each claim by the contractor. 

8. General conclusion. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


5 


1. REFERENCE TO AND QUOTATION OF THE LAW AUTHORIZING THE IN¬ 

VESTIGATION. 

The act of June 24, 1914, page 388, provides: 

That Colonel George W. Goethals, governor of the Canal Zone, and formerly 
chairman and chief engineer of the Isthmian Canal Commission, is hereby 
authorized and directed to investigate the claims of the McClintic-Marshall 
Construction Company, a corporation of the State of Pennsylvania, having its 
principal ollice in the city of Pittsburgh, in said State, and to ascertain what 
amount, if any, is in justice, equity, and fairness due and owing to the said 
McClintic-Marshall Construction Company from the Isthmian Canal Commis¬ 
sion for work and labor done and materials furnished in connection with the 
construction and erection of lock gates and appurtenances for the Panama 
Canal, and in connection with or incidental to the doing of the work and 
furnishing of the materials provided for in a certain contract betwe<?n the 
Isthmian Canal Commission and said McClintic-Marshall Construction Com¬ 
pany, dated June twenty-first, nineteen hundred and ten, taking into con¬ 
sideration the claim of the contractors that the work was done under require¬ 
ments as to character and finish not fairly within the meaning of the specifica¬ 
tions. 

The said Colonel George W. Goethals, governor of the Canal Zone, is fur¬ 
ther authorized and empowered, either personally or through such commission 
as he may appoint, to investigate such claims and the various items thereof in 
such manner as to him may seem best, and either personally or through such 
commission is hereby empowered to administer oaths and affirmations to wit¬ 
nesses, and to issue subpoenas and to compel the attendance of witnesses. He 
shall report in detail to the Congress of the United States his findings. 

Approved, June 24, 1914. 

2. REFERENCE TO CLAIM PRESENTED BY m’CLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUC¬ 

TION CO., AND STATEMENT OF THE CLAIMS MADE. 

October 14, 1914, the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. sub¬ 
mitted its claim in printed form, being 86 pages of printed matter, 
for the opening part of the claims, with an appendix of 38 pages, 
prepared by Paul L. Wolfel, chief engineer, claimant. 

On page 67 of this claim the various items are stated: 

Amount of claims. 

1. Extra cost of working drawings, due to delay in furnishing 


complete designs and data, to changes made, and to delay 

in the approval of working drawings_ $8,890.00 

2. Increased cost of fabrication due to delay in furnishing the 

contractor the necessary data, unfair demands of the 
commission’s engineers, and unreasonable shop inspection. 320, 892. 00 

3. Material rejected or put in stock on account of unreason¬ 

able inspection _ 46, 735. 00 

4. Extra cost of water stops, soaked in red lead and linseed 

oil, put in place_ 21, 999. 75 

5. Loss on shop output, due to delays, unfair demands of the 

commission’s engineers, and unreasonable inspection_ 123, 660. 00 


6. Extra cost of erection due to conditions imposed upon the 
contractor contrary to the contract requirements, also to 
conditions that caused extra expense, which should he 
borne by the commission, to unreasonable inspection in 
the field, and to the necessity of completing the work 
within the time demanded in spite of numerous delays 
caused by the commission, and the extra work necessary 
on account of the conditions mentioned above and un¬ 


reasonable inspection - 1, 325, 091. 00 

7. Extra cost of erection outfit required to complete the work 

within the time demanded_ 200, 000. 00 


Total_ 2, 047, 267. 75 









6 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


July 12, 1915, the claimants revised their claim, as follows: 

Amount of claims. 


1. Extra cost of working drawings, due to delay in furnishing 

complete designs and data, to changes made, and to delay 

in the approval of working drawings- $8, 890. 00 

2. Increased cost of fabrication due to delay in furnishing the 

Contractor the necessary data, unfair demands of the Com¬ 
mission's engineers, and unreasonable shop inspection- 320, 892. 00 

3. Material rejected or put in stock on account of unreasonable 

inspection_ 48, 621. 00 

4. Extra cost of water stops, soaked in red lead and linseed oil, 

put in place_ 21, 999. 75 

5. Loss on shop output, due to delays, unfair demands of the Com¬ 

mission’s engineers, and unreasonable inspection- 123, 660. 00 


6. Extra cost of erection due to conditions imposed upon the Con¬ 
tractor contrary to the contract requirements, also to con¬ 
ditions that caused extra expense which should be borne by 
the Commission, to unreasonable inspection in the field, 
and to the necessity of completing the work within the time 
demanded in spite of numerous delays caused by the Com¬ 
mission and the extra work necessary on account of the 


conditions mentioned above and unreasonable inspection— 1, 218, 475. 00 
7. Extra cost of erection outfit required to complete the work 

within the time demanded_ 200, 000. 00 


Total_ 1,942,537.75 


At the bottom of page 86 of the printed claim the following note 
appears: 

N. B.—Additional claim covering interest charges on account of deferred pay¬ 
ments will be presented in detail as soon as it can be compiled. 

Under date of July 29, 1915, a claim for interest was submitted, as 
follows: 


Interest on invoices rendered per statement attached_$564, 075. 53 

Less interest on cash payments per statement attached_ 540,185. 50 


Total_ 23, 891. 03 

Interest on balance of $31,463.78 from July 31, 1914, to Dec. 7, 

1914_ 676. 48 

Interest on balance of $29,620.41 from Dec. 7, 1914, to Dec. 12, 

1914_ 24. 68 

Interest on balance of $14,704.61 from Dec. 12, 1914, to Dec. 14, 

1914_ 4. 90 


Total_ 24, 597. 09 


3. APPOINTMENT OF THE COMMITTEE AND QUOTATION OF A LETTER MAK¬ 
ING THE APPOINTMENT-ALSO QUOTATION OF A LETTER SHOWING THE 

CHANGE IN THE STATUS OF B. F. HARRAH. 

On December 14, 1914, you appointed a committee and gave in¬ 
structions, as follows: 

Balboa Heights, December 1191Jf. 

Mr. H. H. Rousseau, 

Engineer of Terminal Construction. 

Mr. LI. A. A. Smith, 

Auditor . Panama Canal. 

Mr. B. F. Harrah, 

Assistant Auditor , Washington , D. C. 

Sirs : Under the provisions of the act of June 24, 1914, you are appointed a 
commission to investigate the claims of the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. 



















McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 7 


arising ont of the construction and erection of the lock gates and appurtenances 
for the Panama Canal, under the contract of June 29, 1910. 

I desire that a full and complete investigation be made by you of all matters 
connected with the claims of the contractor, special attention being given to the 
allegations that the work was done under requirements as to character and 
finish not fairly within the meaning of the specifications, and also to the amount 
of expenses incurred by the contractor in carrying out the contract and the 
losses, if any, that were sustained. 

The two members of the commission on the Isthmus will meet and determine 
upon the general plan of procedure to be followed in the conduct of the investi¬ 
gation. Each member of the commission is authorized to act for it in securing 
evidence, in administering oaths and affirmations to wtnesses. in issuing sub¬ 
poenas, and in compelling the attendance of witnesses. Mr. W. M. Sterrett is 
now on the Isthmus, and the investigation should be commenced here as early 
as practicable. It should also be carried on in the States at the same time. 

The commission will issue instructions to Judge Harrah in regard to the 
examination of the books and records of the company in the United States for 
the purpose of ascertaining the amount expended by the company in carrying 
out the contract and for the purpose of obtaining evidence necessary for a com¬ 
plete investigation of the claims of the Contractor. Such witnesses will be 
heard in the States as are necessary to complete the investigation. 

Upon completion of the investigation you will submit your report and recom¬ 
mendations as to the amount, if any, that should in justice, equity, and fairness 
be paid to the said McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. on account of its 
claims under the lock-gate contract. 

Respectfully, 


Geo. W. Goethals, Governor. 


On May 13, 1915, B. F. Harrah, special counsel and examiner of 
claims of the Panama Canal, was appointed a member of the com¬ 
mission to continue the examination that he was making as assistant 
auditor of the Panama Canal. His appointment and authority 
conferred under the terms of the act of June 24, 1914, is as follows: 

Washington, D. C., May 13, 1015. 

B. F. Harrah, special counsel and examiner of claims of the Panama Canal, 
is hereby appointed a member of the commission to examine the claim of the 
McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. under the act of June 24, 1914, to take 
the place of B. F. Harrah, assistant auditor of the Panama Canal, temporarily 
relieved from duty as assistant auditor, and shall have power to subpoena wit¬ 
nesses, compel their attendance, administer oaths, and call for papers, and take 
all other necessary actions to thoroughly investigate said claim as provided 
for in the act of June 24, 1914, including authority to incur and approve the 
necessary expenses in connection with the investigation and report on said 

claim. . „ 

This appointment is made to continue the investigation heretofore begun 
by B. F. Harrah, assistant auditor and member of the commission, and is 
subject to the same limitation that was imposed upon the assistant auditor as 
a member of the commission. 

Geo. W. Goethals, Governor. 


4. HISTORY OF THE CLAIM AND HOW IT ORIGINATED. 

(Under this heading a reference will be made to the original cir¬ 
cular, various modifications therein, the original contract, and the 
various modifications in the original contract.) 

The claim originated under the contract which was let to McClintic- 
Marshall Construction Co. in response to its proposal under circular 
invitation No. 576, issued by the Isthmian Canal Commission April 
16, 1910, calling for proposals to furnish and erect 46 mitering lock 
gates of two leaves each, and certain fixed parts for the same, and 
for furnishing and delivering certain repair parts. 

This circular was to be opened June 15, 1910. 


8 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


It was modified by mimeograph notice of May 4, 1910, by pro¬ 
viding that the masonry at Gatnn Locks should be ready October 1, 
1910, instead of October 1, 1911. 

It was further modified by mimeograph notice of May 6, 1910, 
by providing that the lower and middle gates, intermediate locks 
Gatun, eight leaves in all, should be increased 10 inches in height by 
changing the height, panel 9, from 4 feet 2 inches to 5 feet. 

It was further modified June 9, 1910, by providing that the con¬ 
tractor would be relieved from responsibility for damages caused 
by earthquakes and floods and damages due to defects in the foun¬ 
dations erected by the commission. 

One of the statements contained in the invitation and which the 
contractor claims described the character of the work to be expected 
under the circular was as follows: 

In making the award no bidders will be considered who are not manufac¬ 
turers of high-grade structural bridge or ship work of such character as is 
required in the specifications or whose facilities for furnishing the material 
in the time specified and of the quality required, which will be in the opinion 
of the commission sufficient for the purpose. 

Four bids were received under this circular, as follows: 


McClintic-Marshall Construction Co_$5, 374, 474. 82 

United States Steel Products Export Co_ 6,103, 041.10 

Maryland Steel Co_ 8, 409, 369. 31 

Riter-Conley Manufacturing Co_ 10,183, 257. 00 


The original estimate for the work under this contract was 
$6,500,000. It will be noted, therefore, that two of the bidders were 
below the original estimate. 

After the bids were received, the facilities of the McClintic-Mar¬ 
shall Construction Co. to perform the contract were investigated. 
This investigation satisfied the general purchasing officer of the 
Panama Canal that the McClintic-Marshall Co. were equipped so 
that they could perform this contract. The award was made to them 
June 21, 1910, in accordance with their proposal. A contract dated 
June 21,1910, was subsequently entered into with McClintic-Marshall 
Construction Co. A copy of this contract is attached hereto and 
made a part of this report, together with a copy of circular 576. 

Before the contract was signed, certain corrections were made in 
the specifications printed in Circular 576 and inserted in the con¬ 
tract as “ Table of corrections,” page 4. This table of corrections is 
as follows: 

Lower and middle gates, intermediate lock, Gatun, eight leaves in all; 
height of leaf is hereby increased 10 inches by changing height of panel No. 9 
from 4 feet 2 inches to 5 feet. Girders 9 and 10 will have two upstream cover 
plates of same widths as shown for lower girders. All other parts of gate re¬ 
main unchanged except height of this one panel. 

Page 4 of specifications, group B, item 6: Omit the words “ except those in¬ 
cluded in items 9 and 10.” 

Page 8, seventeenth line from top: “ July 1, 1910,” substituted in place of 
“ June 1, 1910.” 

Page 8, in column “ Masonry ready,” opposite first group of gates, Gatun 
locks, date changed to read “ October 1, 1910,” instead of “ October 1, 1911.” 

Page 12, section 29, last sentence: The keying of the bushing to the pintle 
casting is not shown on the plans, but the bushing must be keyed to the casting 
without extra charge, if the contractor is so directed. 

Section 32, next to last line: “ Section 95 ” should read “ Section 96.” 

Section 33. This entire section shall read as follows: “ This shall be made of 
a nickel-steel forging, with bolts of bronze, all made as shown on drawing 






McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


9 


No. 5042. The pin shall be finished smooth with clearance as shown; it shall 
be securely keyed to a structural seat on the top of the leaf.” 

Page 13, section 42, stiffener angles: As here stated, all stiffener angles shall 
be crimped over flange angles, except where there are reinforcing plates on 
webs. On certain of the drawings fillers are shown, even where there are no 
reinforcing plates, but this is incorrect. The provision of the specification is to 
be followed in this regard. 

Page 17, section 71, lines 3 and 4: In place of “elongation in 8 inches,” read 
“ percentage of elongation in 8 inches.” 

Page 18j section 81, line 3: In place of “elongation in 8 inches,” read “per¬ 
centage or elongation in 8 inches.” 

Page 19, section 87, line 10: In place of “minimum elongation,” read “mini¬ 
mum percentage of elongation.” 

Page 20. last two lines should read: “They must be capable of sustaining a 
pressure of 35 pounds per square inch on the cover.” 

Page 22, section 112, line 2 : Change “ upper girder ” to “ bottom girder.” 

Page 24, section 121, line 7: “ The end plate shall be planed to a smooth 
surface.” This refers to the plate 24 inches wide at the extreme end of 
structural work. The outer surface of this plate is to be finished so that it 
shall form an exact plane for the entire height of the leaf. The original 
thickness of the plate provided must be sufficient to allow this planing without 
reducing final thickness of the plate below three-fourths of an inch. 

Page 27, section 3, tenth line: “June 1, 1910,” should read “July 1, 1910.” 


On August 8, 1910, an agreement embodying certain modifications 
in the specifications was agreed to between Mr. Goldmark, represent¬ 
ing the Isthmian Canal Commission, and Mr. Paul L. Wolfel, rep¬ 
resenting the Contractor. These are numbered consecutively from 
1 to 36, and are printed in back part of the claim. 

In connection with these changes Mr. Goldmark wrote Mr. Paul L. 
Wolfel, chief engineer of the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co., 
as follows: 


Pittsburgh, Pa., xUigust 8, 1910. 

During the past weeks I have gone over with you the plans and specifications, 
with a view to the speedy preparation of the shop drawings, and also for 
obtaining material required for the construction of the gates with the least 
possible delay. With this object in view, we have agreed upon a number of 
minor modifications and additions to the Contractor’s drawings and certain 
provisions in the specifications. These modifications are included in a blue-print 
memorandum attached to this letter, dated August 2 and August 8, which also 
covers certain points taken up with the Jones & Laughlin Steel Co., and the 
Wheeling Mold & Foundry Co., dated August 4 and August G. 

While these memoranda include all changes which have been agreed to, to 
date, there will undoubtedly be further minor modifications and questions of 
detail to be settled with Mr. J. Hammer, assistant engineer, Isthmian Canal 
Commission, who remains in charge of this office. 

I understand that while these changes will, to some extent, vary the weights 
of the several items there is to be no change in any of the unit prices con¬ 
tained in the contract. 

Kindly acknowledge receipt of this letter, and your understanding of its 
purport, particularly reference to the last clause. 

On August 1*2, 1910, Mr. Paul L. Wolfel wrote Mr. Goldmark, as 
follows: 

We beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of August 8, and the attached 
blue prints covering a number of minor modifications and additions of the con¬ 
tractor’s drawings for the Isthmian Canal gates, also certain provisions in 
connection with the specifications. The blue-print memorandum attached to 
vour letter dated August 8 covers the work to be fabricated at Rankin. 
August 2 covers the work to be done at Jones & Laughlin mills, and August 
4 and 6 covers the work to be done by the Wheeling Mold & Foundry Co. We 
find these blue prints correct and in accordance with our understanding and 
will proceed in accordance with the same, with the understanding that there 
will be no changes in any of the unit prices provided for in the contract. 


10 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


We also note that for further changes and matters of detail we will have to 
deal with Mr. J. Hammer, assistant engineer, Isthmian Canal Commission, who 
remains in charge of your office at our works. 

Other supplemental contracts affecting this work were made as 
follows: 

June 15, 1911, a supplemental contract was entered into changing 
the terms of payment and providing for certain changes in the valve 
openings on the 66-foot and 47-foot leaves, providing that sand 
blasting of certain members should be omitted and they should be 
cleaned by other means, the plates to be cleaned by a pickling proc¬ 
ess or a substitute therefor. This contract also provided that— 

It lias been found necessary to substitute 11 by 15 inch manholes for the 10- 
inch diameter vents in each end of the girder in air chamber, and to substitute 
11 by 15 inch manhole covers for 10-inch air-vent covers at these openings in 
end of top girder of air chambers. 

It also provided that the— 

Contractor hereby agrees to make these modifications on the understanding 
that the individual parts as supplied shall be paid for at the same price per 
pound named in the original contract under W. O. 23444 for the several classes 
of material, subject to the limits of overweight therein set forth, and the Con¬ 
tractor agrees to make no claims for reduction in amount to be paid for giivders 
through reduction in weight on account of increase in size of holes cut from 
same or for added cost arising from any extra work involved, increase in num¬ 
ber of rivets to be driven as a result of this modification, in consideration of 
the concession by the Commission affecting the insurance requirements as set 
forth in Ariticle V. 

Article V states the requirements relative to insurance under the 
original contract. 

December 16, 1911, W. O. 23444-A, providing for the completion 
of the entire interior surface of the lock gates with American 
bitumastic enamel instead of American bitumastic solution, as pro¬ 
vided for in the contract, and providing for additional payment 
therefor. 

February 7, 1912, guaranty contract of the American Bitumastic 
Enamels Co. (W. O. 23444-A), guaranteeing the bitumastic enamel 
for a period of five years. 

June 13, 1912, W. O. 23444-B, providing for the substitution of 
vanadium steel for bronze bushings in upper pintle castings and an 
increase in payment therefor. 

January 14, 1913, W. O. 23444 (supplemental), providing for 
changes in payment. 

May 20, 1913, W. O. 23444 (supplemental), providing for new 
dates for the completion of the various gates. 

The contract was completed by the dates specified in the last sup¬ 
plemental agreement. 

On March 6, 1914, as appears in a statement before the Subcom¬ 
mittee on Appropriations, United States Senate, Sixty-third Con¬ 
gress, second session, on House bill 13612, the contractor wrote a 
letter to Senator Oliver, of Pennsylvania, in which a claim was 
made for $2,394,488. 

The act above quoted was passed for the investigation of this 
claim. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL construction CO. 


11 


5. STATEMENT OF THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE, GIVING A REFERENCE 

TO THE TESTIMON1 THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN AND THE DATA THAT HAS 

BEEN ACCUMULATED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTIGATION. 

Mr. Goldmark was employed to examine the files and refresh his 
memory, and to prepare a report on all the general features of this 
claim. 

The result of his work is found in General Exhibit No. 1, volume 
reference 1. 

Mr. Price was also employed to search the files, and he has made 
an exhaustive search of the files in the Washington office and the 
inspection files of Assistant Engineer J. Hammer. 

He has made a report in detail as to the character and method of 
the shop inspection and the manner in which the material was fab¬ 
ricated at the shops. Mr. Price’s report is General Exhibit No. 3. 

The files of the Isthmian Canal Commission have been searched, 
and such letters as bear upon the claim have been copied from the 
files of the Isthmian Canal Commission, W. O. 23444. The copies 
of these letters are found in General Exhibit No. 4, submitted here¬ 
with. 

The testimony of a large number of witnesses has been taken; a 
list of these witnesses is transmitted herewith. 

A partial running index of the testimony of the various witnesses 
is transmitted herewith. 

The books of the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. have been 
examined, and the result of this examination will be found in Ex¬ 
hibit No. 27, volume 27, of the evidence, headed “ Data compiled 
at Rankin, Pa., April 11, 1915, to May 1, 1915.” 

The Contractor has furnished a statement of the total shop cost 
and an analysis of expenses in the United States and on the Isthmus. 
This evidence will be found in General Exhibit No. 26, volume 26, 
of the evidence. 

C. A STATEMENT OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES WHICH THE COMMITTEE 
HAVE APPLIED IN THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CLAIMS MADE. 

The manner in which the claim was submitted made it necessary 
for the committee to investigate the various contentions of the claim¬ 
ant and in applying the evidence to resolve the unknown quantities 
by the weight of the probabilities. 

In most instances it has been found impossible to obtain such 
evidence as would enable the committee to reduce the claims to any¬ 
thing more than a reasonable estimate. 

It does not seem from the act of Congress that Congress intended 
to relieve the Contractor from his obligations under the contract, 
and the committee has proceeded upon the theory that the Contractor 
was bound to perform his contract and do all things that could be 
required of him under a reasonable and fair interpretation of the 
terms of the contract for the compensation named in the contract. 
It would not seem to be just, equitable, or fair to relieve the Con¬ 
tractor from his contract obligations. Congress seems to have indi¬ 
cated that this should be the scope of the investigation when it said 
“ taking into consideration the claim of the Contractor that the work 
was done under requirements as to character and finish not fairly 


12 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


within the meaning of the specifications.” These words seem to 
have been inserted to determine the character and scope of the in¬ 
vestigation authorized. 

In the investigation the Contractor has been permitted to submit 
evidence upon every feature of the claim, and in applying that 
evidence your committee has endeavored to exclude such of the 
evidence submitted ns does not armear to bp within the scope and 
purpose of the act of Congress, and to consider only such as comes 
fairly within the language of the act conferring the authority upon 
you. 

The claims are each considered separately and a recommendation 
is made upon each individual claim. It is not believed, however, 
by the committee that Congress intended that the Contractor should 
be stopped, by reason of any contract provisions which might other¬ 
wise prohibit its consideration as a legal claim from asserting any 
equitable or just claim which it might have under a fair interpreta¬ 
tion of the contract provisions. In other words, if, under a fair 
and reasonable interpretation of the contract and the facts as they 
have been developed, it would seem that in justice, equity, and fair¬ 
ness, an allowance should be made to the Contractor, such allowance 
is recommended. 

Claims have only been considered as res ad judicata in cases where 
they have been taken up and fully considered and contracts entered 
into supplemental to the original contract settling the particular 
claims and contentions covered by the supplemental contract. 

There seems to be many causes of complaint on the part of the 
Contractor that were not taken up and settled or passed upon in 
the form of any supplemental agreement. These contentions are 
considered in connection with each individual claim. 

Your committee has prepared a detailed report containing a brief 
of the evidence, statement of facts, conclusions, comments, and 
action recommended- on each claim, which will be hereinafter re¬ 
ferred to as “ Report in detail on claims.” 


7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION 
AS TO TIIE ACTION TO BE TAKEN UPON EACH CLAIM BY THE CON¬ 
TRACTOR. 

Claim No. 1. 

Extra cost of working drawings, due to delay in furnishing complete 
designs and data, to changes made and to delay in the approval 
of working drawings-$g } ggp 

(See pp. 67 and 68, book of claims.) 

There was delay in furnishing the necessary data and completing 
the designs for the working drawings. 

There were changes which increased the cost of the drawings. 
There were delays in the approval of the working drawings which 
increased the cost of these drawings. 

The parts of these increased expenses which your committee finds 
Were occasioned by the fault of the Isthmian Canal Commission 
are as follows: 


Lost time at the start_ 

Delays on account of information 

Change in pump chamber_ 

Change in gauges_ 


$350 

600 

625 

510 







McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


13 


Changes in air vent_ $210 

Change in manhole frames_ 120 

Change in mitering mechanism_ 105 

Addition of bent angles top of air chamber_ 30 

Change in sheathing plates_ 805 

Man loaned to Mr. Hammer_ 180 

Change in cast-iron curbs_ 45 

Experimenting with manhole covers_ 100 

Delay in approving drawings_ 600 

Extra work on spare parts_ 550 

Man in Mr. Hammer’s office_ 750 


Total_5,580 

It is recommended that this amount be paid to the Contractor 
under claim No. 1. (See “Report in detail on claims,” pp. 1 to 15, 
inclusive.) 

Claim No. 2. 


Increased cost of fabrication due to delay in furnishing the Con¬ 
tractor the necessary data, unfair demands of the Commission’s 
engineers, and unreasonable shop inspection_$320, 892 

This claim is based upon the theory that the shop labor and sur¬ 
charge on the lock gates was over $4 per ton higher than the aver¬ 
age cost of all work turned out of shop 2 for the year preceding 
and the year succeeding the fabrication of the lock-gate material, and 
on the further contention that the lock-gate material should have 
been fabricated at about $2 per ton less than the average cost 
of all work passing through shop 2 for the year preceding and the 
year succeeding the fabrication of the lock-gate material. 

The lock-gate material did cost $4 per ton more to fabricate than 
all work turned out of the same shop for the year preceding and the 
year succeeding the fabrication of the lock-gate material. The lock- 
gate material should have cost more than all other material fabri¬ 
cated in shop 2 for the year preceding and the year succeeding-the 
fabrication of the lock-gate material. 

The facts do not support the contention of the contractor that it 
should have cost less to fabricate the lock-gate material than all other 
material passing through shop No. 2 for the year preceding and 
the year succeeding the fabrication of the lock-gate material. 

The lock-gate material did cost more to fabricate in shop 2 than 
it should have cost the contractor, owing to the excessive demands 
made by the Isthmian Canal Commission’s engineers and inspectors 
and to the changes that were made in the specifications. 

The amount of such increased cost under claim 2, due to changes 
and excessive demands of the engineers and inspectors, for which 
the Isthmian Canal Commission should be held responsible in equity, 
fairness, and justice, is $77,264.64. It is recommended that this sum 
be paid to the Contractor. (See “Report in detail on claims,” pp. 
16 to 215, inclusive.) 

Claim No. 3. 


Material rejected or put in stock on account of unreasonable inspection. $48, 621 
(See p. 67, book of claims.) 

Material was rejected and put in stock on account of unreasonable 

inspection. „ _ , 

The amount of material rejected for these and other causes tor 
which the Isthmian Canal Commission should be held responsible, 
is 600,000 pounds. 
















14 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


The amount to be paid for this material is fixed at $35 per ton 
The amount recommended to be paid on this claim is $10,500. (See 
“Report in detail on claims,” pp. 216 to 247, inclusive.) 

Claim No. Jf. 

Extra cost of water stops, soaked in red lead and linseed oil, put in 

place_$21, 094. 75 

(See pp. 67, 69, 70, book of claims.) 

Water stops were not required under the original specifications. 
The use of water stops was necessary to make the work water-tight. 
The extra cost in connection with their use is found to be reason¬ 
able. It is recommended that the amount of this claim as revised— 
$21,094.75—be paid to the contractor. (See “Report in detail on 
claims,” pp. 247-248, inclusive.) 

Claim No. 5. 

Loss on shop output due to delays, unfair demands of the commis¬ 
sion’s engineers, and unreasonable inspection_$123, 660 

(See pp. 67, 70, book of claims.) 

The loss of output in shop 2 for which the Isthmian Canal Com¬ 
mission is considered responsible was 4,702 tons. 

The profit that the contractor might reasonably have expected to 
make from this output was $5 per ton. 

It is recommended that $23,510 be allowed on this claim. (See 
“Report in detail on claims,” pp. 248, 249, also 215.) 

Claim No. 6. 

Extra cost of erection due to conditions imposed upon the contractor 
contrary to the contract requirements, also to conditions that 
caused extra expense which should be borne by the commission, 
to unreasonable inspection in the field, and to the necessity of 
completing the work within the time demanded in spite of numer¬ 
ous delays caused by the commission, and the extra work neces¬ 
sary on account of the conditions mentioned above and unrea¬ 
sonable inspection_$1, 218, 475 

(See p. 67, book of claims.) 

The contractor did incur extra expense in connection with the erec¬ 
tion of the lock gates due to conditions imposed upon him in excess 
of the contract requirements. 

Applying the method of arriving at such excess as adopted by the 
contractor in his claim from pages 73 to 85, inclusive, to the evidence, 
your committee finds that the excess for which the Isthmian Canal 
Commission was responsible amounts to $499,098. 

It is recommended that this sum be paid to the contractor under 
claim 6. (See “Report in detail on claims,” pp. 253-470, inclusive.) 

Claim 7. 

Extra cost of erection outfit required to complete the work within the 

time demanded_$200, 000 

(See p. 67, book of claims.) 

The contractor claims that the total cost of equipment and tools 
for the work, less the salvage, was about $400,000. He claims that 
one-half of this excess cost is chargeable to the commission. 






McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


15 


The action of the Isthmian Canal Commission did cause the con¬ 
tractor to purchase extra equipment in order to complete the work 
under the requirements as to character and finish imposed and by the 
time specified in the supplemental contract. 

The value of this excess equipment for which the Isthmian Canal 
Commission is found to be responsible is $75,000. 

It is recommended that the contractor be paid $75,000 on claim 7. 
(See “Report in detail on claims,” pp. 471-474, inclusive.) 

The contractor claims $1,960 for the use of a crane (No. 18) which 
was wrecked by a gravel train operated by the Isthmian Canal Com¬ 
mission. 

The commission repaired this crane at the Gorgona shops and the 
contractor lost the use of it for 98 days. The amount is considered 
reasonable, and it is recommended that it be paid. (See “ Report in 
detail on claims,” pp. 475, 477.) 

8. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS. 

It is the conclusion of your committee that the amount which 
should in equity, justness, and fairness be paid to the McClintic Mar¬ 
shall Construction Co. upon the claim which you were authorized 
and directed to investigate by the act of June 24, 1914, is $714,007.39. 
(See “ Report in detail on claims,” p. 480.) 

It is recommended by your committee that the sum of $714,007.39 
be reported to Congress under act of June 24, 1914, as the amount 
which, “ in justice, equity, and fairness, is due and owing to the Mc¬ 
Clintic Marshall Construction Company from the Isthmian Canal 
Commission for work and labor done and materials furnished in con¬ 
nection with the construction and erection of lock gates and appurte¬ 
nances for the Panama Canal, and in connection with or incidental to 
the doing of the work and furnishing of the material provided for in 
a certain contract between the Isthmian Canal Commission and the 
said McClintic Marshall Construction Company, dated June twenty- 
first, nineteen hundred and ten, taking into consideration the claim 
of the contractor that the work was done under requirements as to 
character and finish not fairly within the meaning of the specifica¬ 
tions. * * * He shall report in detail to the Congress of the 

United States his findings.” 

Very respectfully, 

H. H. Rousseau, 

Chairman of Committee, 
Engineer of Terminal Construction. 

E. A. A. Smith, 

Member of Committee, 

Auditor. 

B. F. Harrah, 

Member of Committee , 
Special Counsel and Examiner of Claims. 

The above findings and recommendations are approved. 

Geo. W. Goethals, 
Governor the Panama Canal. 


CLAIMS OF McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 





Pittsburgh, Pa., October 1^, 191\ 

Col. Geo. W. Goethals, 

Governor Canal Zone , Balboa , Canal Zone. 

Dear Sir : We present herewith our claims for extra compensation 
on the Panama Canal lock gate contract, W.O. 23444, so that you can 
investigate these claims and report to Congress the amount due us in 
justice, equity, and fairness, in accordance with act S. 5147, copy of 
which is attached hereto, authorizing and directing you to make such 
investigation and report. 

Yours, very truly, 

McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. 

C. D. Marshall, President . 


[Public, No. 119, 63d Congress.] 
[S. 53.47.] 


AN ACT To authorize and direct Col. George W. Goethals, Governor of the Canal Zone, 
and formerly chairman and chief engineer of the Isthmian Canal Commission, to inves¬ 
tigate certain claims of the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and. House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, That Colonel George W. Goethals, governor 
of the Canal Zone and formerly chairman and chief engineer of the Isthmian 
Canal Commission, is hereby authorized and directed to investigate the claims 
of the McClintic-Marshall Construction Company, a corporation of the State of 
Pennsylvania, having its principal office in the city of Pittsburgh, in said State, 
and to ascertain what amount, if any, is in justice, equity, and fairness due and 
owing to said McClintic-Marshall Construction Company from the Isthmian 
Canal Commission for work and labor done and materials furnished in connec¬ 
tion with the construction and erection of lock gates and appurtenances for the 
Panama Canal, and in connection with or incidental to the doing of the work and 
furnishing of the materials provided for in a certain contract between the 
Isthmian Canal Commission and the said McClintic-Marshall Construction Com¬ 
pany, dated June twenty-first, nineteen hundred and ten, taking into considera¬ 
tion the claim of the contractors that the work was done under requirements as 
to character and finish not fairly within the meaning of the specifications. 

The said Colonel George W. Goethals, governor of the Canal Zone, is further 
authorized and empowered, either personally or through such commissions as 
he may appoint, to investigate such claims and the various items thereof in 
such manner as to him may seem best, and either personally or through such 
commission is hereby empowered to administer oaths and affirmations to wit¬ 
nesses, and to issue subpoenas and to compel the attendance of witnesses. He 
shall report in detail to the Congress of the United States his findings. 
Approved June twenty-fourth, nineteen hundred and fourteen. 


Statement of Claims. 

Hereinafter where the word “ Commission ” is used it refers to 
the Isthmian Canal Commission, and where the word u Contractor ” 
is used it refers to the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. 

16 




McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 17 

The Contractor claims extra compensation on above contract for 
the following reasons: 

First. That the Commission failed to furnish, at the time of sign¬ 
ing the contract, the necessary data for the execution of the work, 
and at times failed to approve the detail drawings promptly, there¬ 
by very much delaying the progress in the shop, increasing the manu¬ 
facturing costs, diminishing the shop output, and holding up the 
work in the field to such an extent that an enormous expense was 
incurred in order to complete the work in the time required. 

Second. That the Commission’s engineers and inspectors demanded 
and received shopwork of a much more refined and costly character 
than that called for by the contract. 

That for a long time both the engineering and inspecting or¬ 
ganizations of the Commission at the shop were inadequate to han¬ 
dle the work. 

That the Commission’s shop inspectors were at times unreasonable, 
indecisive, and inconsistent, creating in the shop organization a 
state of uncertainty as to what would be acceptable to the inspectors. 

That the Commission’s engineers and inspectors forced the Con¬ 
tractor to make the sizes of the subpunched holes smaller than clearly 
specified in the contract specifications. 

That all this very much delayed the progress in the shop, increased 
the manufacturing cost, diminished the shop output, and held up 
and increased the work in the field to such an extent that an enor¬ 
mous expense was incurred in order to complete the work in the time 
required. 

Third. That the Commission failed to furnish, in accordance with 
the terms of the contract, sufficient and suitable unoccupied storage 
grounds on the Isthmus for the materials of the Contractor. 

That the Commission obstructed the erection by its failure to keep 
water out of the lock chambers and in other ways. 

That the Commission, through* its engineers, by forcing the Con¬ 
tractor to punch the holes for the field rivets smaller than called for 
by the specifications, greatly delayed the work in the field and in¬ 
creased the election cost. 

Through these defaults of the Commission the work was delayed 
and the cost increased. 

Fourth. That the Commission’s inspectors on the Isthmus were 
unreasonable in their requirements. 

That they insisted upon having the work executed contrary to 
the spirit of a previous agreement, and also on having work done 
distinctly not called for in the specifications. 

That "they exceeded their authority by prescribing the method 
under which the work should be erected and by insisting upon hav¬ 
ing this method carried out. 

That on account of the inadequate shop painting and unreasonable 
inspection the Contractor was obliged , to do unnecessary interior 
cleaning. 

On account of the above the Contractor was seriously delayed and 
put to large extra expense. 

Fifth. That taking into account the extension of time to which 
the Contractor was entitled on account of the delays caused by the 

29249°—H. Doc. 906, 64-1-2 


18 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


Commission he was required to and did complete the work in a 
much shorter time than that provided for in the contract. 

That in order to meet these requirements of the Commission the 
Contractor had to resort to a large amount of rush work, which 
again caused enormously increased costs in the field. 

That even if the delays previously described had not occurred 
much of this expensive rush work would have been necessary on the 
leaves at Pedro Miguel and Miraflores, as the masonry for these 
leaves was very much behind the dates established in the contract, 
making the time available for the erection of these leaves too short 
for carrying on the field operations in an economical way when the 
kind of work that had to be done in the field is taken into con¬ 
sideration. 

Sixth. That the Contractor has not received adequate compensa¬ 
tion for the water stops that had to be used to make the work water¬ 
tight, although not called for on the plans or in the specifications. 

SUBSTANTIATION OF FOREGOING STATEMENTS FORMING BASES OF CLAIMS. 

First. That the Commission failed to furnish, at the time of signing the con¬ 
tract, the necessary data for the execution of the work, and at times failed to 
approve the detail drawings promptly, thereby very much delaying the progress 
in the shop, increasing the manufacturing costs, diminishing the shop output, 
and holding up the work in the field to such an extent that an enormous ex¬ 
pense was incurred in order to complete the work in the time required. 

The contract for this work is dated June 21, 1910, and provides— 

Article II, page 4: 

The Contractor shall, on or before June 27, 1910, begin the preparation of the 
working drawings and make all other necessary arrangements for the prompt 
ordering of the material, etc. 

Article IV, page 6: 

The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the Commission, in duplicate, all 
necessary working drawings for the gate leaves and fixed parts, with detailed 
calculation of weights. Before any material is ordered or work begun, these 
working drawings must be approved by the chief engineer of the Commission or 
his authorized representative, and any material ordered or work done by the 
Contractor prior to the approval of the drawings shall be entirely at his own 
risk, etc. 

Paragraph 120, page 23,1. C. C. Circular 576, states: 

In order to detect any errors in the templets, etc., the Contractor shall erect 
at his works, without charge, one complete leaf of each different height in¬ 
cluded in this contract. Such leaves shall be carefully assembled and bolted 
together, but are not to be riveted up nor have the rivet and bolt holes 
reamed, etc. 

From these requirements it will be seen that complete approved 
drawings had to be in the hands of the Contractor before he could 
order material and proceed with the fabrication, so that the typical 
leaves could be assembled at the Contractor’s yards and shipment 
started. 

These drawings, of course, could not even be prepared before com¬ 
plete and correct information was in hand. 

This information, therefore, should have been in the Contractor’s 
hands at the time the contract was signed, so that all work could be 
fabricated economically and expeditiously, and the necessary prog- 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


19 


ress secured and maintained. This, however, was not the case, as is 
shown by the following: 

(a) In order to correct some impracticable features of the original designs 
and, further, to secure some desirable improvements in the construction, an 
agreement embodying some 36 changes was made between Mr. Ilenry Goldmark, 
designing engineer of the Commission, and the Contractor, dated August 8, 

1VW. 

(b) Manhole covers were changed many times and experimented with during 
many months. The drawings for these covers were approved March 21, 1911, 
but changes were made until August 21, 1911, 14 months after date of contract. 

(c) Numerous other changes were made as the work progressed. 

(d) The water-tight frames as originally designed were unsatisfactory, and 
a satisfactory frame was only secured after long and expensive experiments on 
the Contractor’s part. 

(e) The information for the pumping system was not complete until Octo¬ 
ber 31, 1910, and for the mitering mechanism until March 29, 1911. 

(/) The drawings for the first eight leaves were approved between October 
29, 1910, and January 21, 1911. The late date of this approval is caused 
by the delay in getting the information, as the approval itself was quite 
prompt. The drawings for the last twenty-four 77-foot leaves, which were sub¬ 
mitted for approval between October 1, 1910, and January 31, 1911, were ap¬ 
proved January 18, 1912, approximately 12 months after being submitted. The 
drawings for the 82-foot leaves were submitted for approval April 15, 1911, 
and approved between March 6 and March 18, 1912, about 11 months after 
being submitted. The drawings for the 66-foot leaves were submitted April 
22, 1911, and approved from March 6, 1912, to March IS, 1912, about 11 months 
after being submitted. 

It should be noted that this final approval occurred from 20 to 21 months 
after the award of the contract. 

On account of the above changes and delays the assembling of the 
first leaf at the shop could not be started until January 15, 1911, 
and was not completed until May 15, 1911. 

According to the contract dated June 21, 1910, the Contractor was 
to commence the erection of the upper guard gates at Gatun Janu¬ 
ary 1, 1911, and at Pedro Miguel March 1, 1911. It can readily be 
seen that if the Contractor was to keep these dates it would have been 
necessary for the Commission to furnish him very promptly all the 
necessary information covering the design of these lock gates. 

It should be observed that important information was not fur¬ 
nished until eight months after the erection should have been started 
at the Isthmus. 

It will thus be appreciated that the Contractor was seriously 
hampered in starting and handling this work promptly and economi¬ 
cally, and that it was out of the question to meet the dates for 
starting work at the Isthmus established by the contract. 

There can be no question that the delays and changes described 
above must have caused, and did cause, the Contractor considerable 
extra expense in the preparation of the shop drawings, for which he 
justly will claim compensation, and it is further self-evident that 
these delays are the first cause for the very expensive rush work 
that had to be resorted to later on to meet the Commission’s wishes 
as to the final completion of the gates. 

A report has been prepared by the Contractor’s chief engineer, 
Mr. Paul L. Wolfel, covering the changes and delays in receiving 
information and having drawings approved, which goes into these 
matters in detail, and is submitted with the claim. (See Appendix.) 

Second. That the Commission’s engineers and inspector demanded and re¬ 
ceived shopwork of a much more refined and costly character than that called 
for by the contract. 


20 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


That for a long time both the engineering and inspecting organizations of 
the Commission at the shop were inadequate to handle the work. 

That the Commission’s shop inspectors were at times unreasonable, inde¬ 
cisive, and inconsistent, creating in the shop organization a state of uncertainty 
as to what would be acceptable to the inspectors. 

That the Commission’s engineers and inspectors forced the Contractor to make 
the sizes of the subpunched holes smaller than clearly specified in the contract 
specifications. 

That all this very much delayed the progress in the shop, increased the 
manufacturing cost, diminished the shop output, and held up and increased 
the work in the field to such an extent that an enormous expense was incurred 
in order to complete the work in the time required. 

The general character of the work contemplated under the specifi¬ 
cations for the lock gates is indicated by the following paragraph 
in Circular No. 576, being an invitation for proposals to furnish 
and erect 46 mitering lock gates. The paragraph referred to is as 
follows: 

In making the award, no bidders will be considered who are not manu¬ 
facturers of high-grade structural, bridge, or ship work, of such character as 
is required in the specifications, or whose facilities for furnishing the material 
in the time specified and of the quality required shall not be, in the opinion of 
the Commission, sufficient for the purpose. 

Before the contract was awarded, the Commission’s representatives 
investigated the Contractor’s plant as to facilities and capacity for 
turning out the work, and they also investigated his record for 
executing satisfactorily “high-grade structural and bridge work.” 

The Commission’s investigation evidently showed the Contractor’s 
plant to be properly equipped and the quality of his work high grade 
in every particular, as they raised no question whatever about award¬ 
ing the contract for the lock gates to said Contractor. 

There is another and a higher grade of fabricated structural steel¬ 
work than that which is known as “ high-grade structural and bridge 
work.” This higher grade of fabricated work is generally known 
as “machine-shop work.” The difference consists largely in the de¬ 
gree of accuracy required in the details of fabrication and the tools 
and methods employed in securing this greater degree of accuracy 
and refinement. The Canal Commission was evidently fully aware 
of the difference between these two classes of work, as is shown by 
the following paragraph which appears in their subsequent specifica¬ 
tions for “ rising stem-gate valves,” Circular No. 636: 

These valves are machines and must be constructed as a machine-shop job. 

The latter specifications provided for certain limits of variation, 
and these limits are considerably greater than those allowed by the 
lock-gate inspectors. 

When the Contractor started the shopwork on this contract the 
Government had little or no organization to look after the shop in¬ 
spection. A large part of the first eight leaves was manufactured 
according to the Contractor’s interpretation of the specifications, 
and with the same care and methods that he had been accustomed to 
use on other high-class bridge and structural steelwork. 

When the first leaf was assembled at the Contractor’s shop, the 
work did not fit wfith the precision, as to details, demanded by the 
chief inspector. No work up to this time had either been accepted 
or rejected, but in going over the assembled leaf the inspector practi¬ 
cally condemned all work up to that time. After a long and serious 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


21 


delay the Contractor was made to realize that the inspector would 
and did require that the remaining work be done with the precision 
and accuracy of a machine-shop job. This necessitated an entire 
readjustment of the shop methods, increasing the cost, reducing the 
output, and delaying the work generally. 

After Mr. Goldmark had come up from the Isthmus and per¬ 
sonally gone over the work, the work held up on the original eight 
leaves was finally accepted conditionally. The material was sent to 
the Isthmus, erected and completed, and accepted. The results were 
far better than the Commission ever had hoped to secure under the 
specifications, thus proving that the inspectors were not justified in 
demanding* the degree of accuracy on which thev insisted. 

Under these circumstances it is only just that the Government 
should pay the extra cost of the shop work and reimburse the Con¬ 
tractor for the delay and extra cost of erection occasioned thereby. 

We give below a statement of some of the important and unreason¬ 
able demands made by the inspectors in regard to shop workmanship: 

(a) The precision demanded in the spacing of the punched and 
drilled holes was so exacting that the Contractor was obliged to 
abandon, except for the first eight leaves fabricated, his customary 
method of using wooden templets and substitute therefor steel tem¬ 
plets and arrange to punch the holes of smaller diameter than called 
for by the specifications. 

(b) It was required that the plates be turned and calipered in the 
shop before any work was done on them, a most unusual and unrea¬ 
sonable shop requirement. 

(c) Plates and shapes as commercially rolled are never theo¬ 
retically perfect, either in finish, dimensions, or shape. Nevertheless, 
in a number of the different parts the Contractor was compelled to 
correct these imperfections by an excessive amount of work. 

( d ) The workmanship required on the turned bolts was of such 
an exacting nature that the Contractor was compelled to abandon the 
manufacturing of them. These bolts were subsequently made by 
another concern, by a man whom the Contractor had employed on 
machines of the same make as those on which the bolts were finally 
made. 

( e) The unreasonableness of the inspection is also shown by the 
causes for which a large amount of material was rejected at the shop 
before and after fabrication. 

The specifications for the lock gates covering the chemical and 
physical requirements for the steel are about the same as for high- 
grade structural, bridge, or ship work, with the exception that the 
specifications for high-grade structural, bridge, and ship work do 
not specify perfection, as will be noted from the extracts of specifi¬ 
cations given below for the largest structures now being constructed 
in this country and Canada: 

New York Connecting Railroad, Hell Gate Bridge over East River,. 
80,000 tons: 

The finished material shall be free from injurious seams, flaws, cracks, or 
defective edges, and have a clean, smooth finish. 

Quebec Bridge over St Lawrence River, Quebec, Ontario, 80,000 
tons: 

The finished material shall be free from injurious seams, flaws, cracks, or 
defective edges, and have a clean, smooth finish. 


22 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


New York State Barge Canal: 

Finished material shall be uniform in character for each specified kind, clean, 
smooth, straight, true to shape, of workmanlike finish, and free from cracks, 
flaws, blisters, injurious seams, ragged edires, surface imperfections, or other 
defects. 

Mississippi River bridge, Memphis, Tenn.: 

All steel shall be of uniform quality of each class. It shall be straight, with¬ 
out buckles or kinks, and free from injurious seams, flaws, cracks, excessive 
scale and pitting, and other defects. 

Metropolis Bridge over Ohio River, Chicago, Burlington & Quincy 
Railroad, 17,000 tons: 

Finished material shall be free from injurious seams, flaws, cracks, defective 
edges, or other defects, and have a smooth and uniform and workmanlike finish. 

Standard specifications, structural steel for ships: 

The finished material shall be free from injurious seams, slivers, flaws, and 
other defects and shall have a workmanlike finish. 

Lock gates, Panama Canal, I. C. C. Circular No. 576: 

Plates and shapes must be free from slag, foreign substances, brittleness, 
hard spots, laminations ,sand, or scale marks, snakes, pits, and defects gen¬ 
erally. Shapes must also be free from defective sections, shaded backs, grooved 
fillets, imperfect edges, crookedness, etc. 

From the above extracts it will be noted that the material for 
structural, bridge, and ship work shall be free from injurious de¬ 
fects, but in the case of the lock gates it simply states that the 
material must be free from defects. 

The Commission's inspectors felt it their duty to see that material 
was furnished in accordance with a literal interpretation of the 
specifications and would accept nothing but practically perfect 
material. This accounts for the tons upon tons of material that was 
needlessly rejected and for which claim will be made. 

The clauses covering “ Workmanship ” in the specifications for 
“high-grade structural and bridge work” are as follows: 

New York Connecting Railroad, Hell Gate Bridge over East River, 
80,000 tons: 

The magnitude and character of the construction and the accuracy required 
will make frequent consultation with the engineer advisable, to the end that 
all workmanship, whether particularly specified or not, shall be the best which 
present practice or improvement therein will admit of. The decision of the 
engineer on any question arising in this respect shall be final. 

Quebec bridge over St. Lawrence River, Quebec, Ontario, 80,000 
tons: 

The workmanship and finish shall be the best that the most suitable modern 
machinery and skilled labor to be obtained can give to meet these specifications. 

New York State barge canal: 

All workmanship shall be in every particular of the best in use at the present 
time. In any case of doubt as to the quality of work required by these speci¬ 
fications that interpretation shall be given which shall secure the best class 
of work. 

Lack of facilities shall not be considered as sufficient excuse for poor or 
inferior workmanship. 

Mississippi River bridge, Memphis, Tenn.: 

The work must be of the best class now in use, and the plans and specifica¬ 
tions shall never be interpreted as meaning anything but the very best kind 
of work in all respects. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


23 


Metropolis Bridge over Ohio River, Chicago, Burlington & 
Quincy Railroad, 17,000 tons: 

The workmanship and finish shall be equal to the best practice in modern 
bridge works. 

Lock gates, Panama Canal, I. C. C. Circular No. 576: 

All workmanship must be first class in every particular, and all methods 
used during manufacture shall be satisfactory to the chief engineer or his 
authorized representatives. Material undergoing fabrication will be inspected 
by the inspectors employed by the Commission. 

It will be seen from the above that the workmanship for the best 
grade of bridge work must conform, or be equal to, the best practice 
in modern bridge works. The workmanship for the canal gates 
must be first class as interpreted by the authorized representative 
of the chief engineer. 

The Commission’s specifications for the lock gates, both for shop 
and mill, throw the doors wide open to an inspector to be extreme in 
his requirements, consequently no one but a man of long and wide 
experience should have been put in charge of the inspection of this 
undertaking, the greatest of its kind ever attempted. 

Mr. »T. M. Hammer, assistant engineer of the Commission, was 
put in charge of all work for the lock gates in the United States. 
He had supervision of the preparation of all drawings and bills, 
and had to approve the same; he had to approve all bills rendered 
by the Contractor, and at the same time had to look after all work 
at the mills and shops through an inspection force that he had to 
organize. 

The Contractor has reason to believe that When Mr. Hammer was 
put in such extensive charge of this great undertaking this was the 
first time that he had any connection with the actual execution of work 
at the mill or shop; that all his previous experience was confined to 
drafting and designing in the office as assistant to other engineers; 
and that never before had be been connected with—much less been in 
charge of—structural, bridge, or ship work during its execution in 
a shop, as is shown by his own record. In his application to the 
American Society of Civil Engineers for membership, under date 
of October 15,1912, he gives his experience, or record, as follows: 

Hammer, Johannes Marcelius—Pittsburgh, Pa. (Age 38. Born Trondhjem, 
Norway.) (Civ. Engr. course Teck. Coll., Trondhjem, Norway, 1896)—1896 to 
1900 (about 4 years) Engr. Asst, with Gvt. of Norway, on building of fortifica¬ 
tions at Trondhjem and Kristianssand, during 1899 and 1900 to a great extent 
in charge of field work; 1901 Engr. Asst., on building of municipal waterpower 
plant and electric street railway at Trondhjem; 1902 and 1903 (two terms) 
student, civil engineering, Polytechnic Inst., Zurich, Switzerland; Feb. to July 
(about) 1904 Draftsman, Foundation Co., New York City; 1904 to April 1905, 
Transitman, Central R. R. of N. J.; April 1905 to Sept. 1906, with Foundation 
Co., making and checking plans for caissons, air locks, derricks, pile drivers, 
etc.; Sept. 1906 to Sept. 1907, P :,, ;ner and Checker of Bridges and other 
structures, New York Central R. : Co., New York City; Sept. 1907 to date 
Asst. Engr. Isthmian Canal Commission, principally on preparation of design 
for lock gates at Panama Canal, since Aug. 1910 in charge of mill and shop 
inspection, and approval of shop drawings and bills for lock gates. 

Mr. Goldmark, in his eagerness to obtain the very best for the 
Commission, and with the quite natural pride a designing engineer 
takes in his work, also possibly on account of his knowledge of the 
inexperience of the assistant engineer put in charge, often by word 


24 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


of mouth and in correspondence stated that no other but perfect 
work would be accepted. It can readily be seen that with such in¬ 
structions and no previous experience to guide him,, the assistant 
engineer in charge would insist upon work far superior to what is 
customary in high-grade structural, bridge, or ship work, and that his 
interpretation of the specifications as to the first-class workmanship 
would hardly confine itself to the best practice of bridge or ship 
work so well established. 

It is a very difficult matter for a manufacturer to satisfy an inex¬ 
perienced inspector, especially one who also has been one of the 
designers of the work. In this case the result has been that the 
Contractor did not have to furnish a serviceable structure following 
the lines of best practice, but a structure as near perfect as human 
brains and human skill could make it. 

As a matter of fact, on account of his long experience, Mr. Gold¬ 
mark’s own interpretation of the perfection necessary in the work 
was much more liberal than Mr. Hammer’s. This is borne out by the 
fact that the Contractor was not allowed to ship the first eight leaves, 
even conditionally, until Mr. Goldmark had personally gone over 
the work. 

The foregoing explains the close limitations imposed upon the Con¬ 
tractor in the execution of the work and the strictness with which 
these limitations were enforced. This also accounts for the difficulty 
of getting an inspection force organized to take care of the work 
properly and promptly under such close limitations. The Contractor 
suffered greatly from this lack of organization, at times having his 
shop and his yards completely blocked by work waiting for inspec¬ 
tion, causing most serious delay and expense. This condition was 
aggravated by the chief inspector being changed twice, in each in¬ 
stance the force getting seriously upset. This matter became so 
serious that under date of April 18, 1911. ten months after date of 
contract, a strong letter was written to Mr. Hammer by the Con¬ 
tractor’s chief engineer, from which we quote as follows: 

Yon will see from this that our shop is away ahead of your inspection force. 
It is further unquestionably true that our shop is gaining on your force all the 
time, which makes the situation become more aggravated every day. If relief 
is not furnished soon, the time is not so very far off when we will practically 
have to shut down our shop in order to enable your men to sufficiently catch 
up with the inspection until such a time that the congestion is sufficiently 
relieved for us to resume operations. 

You will probably have to more than double your force to keep up with the 
current work, as every day’s work should be inspected and finally passed on as 
soon as, or even before, it leaves the shop, so that the sand blasting and paint¬ 
ing can finish up the operation and the material can expeditiously be shipped. 
In addition to the regular force that looks after the inspection and measuring 
up of the steelwork, special men will be required at tin; pickling plant, at the 
sand blast, and at the scales, so the writer feels that he is not very much out 
of the way if he expresses the opinion that you will have to more than double 
your present force. 

Now, to get relieved of the stagnation that has now taken place on account 
of us having such a large mass of material on our hands uninspected is another 
question, and a very serious one at that. It seems to the writer that it might 
be a wise policy to call in a well organized inspection bureau to help out on this 
work until the output of the shop and the amount of work that your inspection 
force can handle are properly balanced. The Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory, 
R. W. Hunt, William R. Webster, Allan Colby, or any other first-class inspection 
bureau, will be equally acceptable to us and could undoubtedly be of very 
material service to relieve the present situation. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


25 


The statements made above are not in any way intended as a re¬ 
flection on Mr. Hammer, whose ability as an engineer and designer, 
and whose conscientiousness and industry we thoroughly appreciate 
and admire. He got the very best possible for the Commission, but 
in doing so imposed great hardships on the Contractor. It was no 
small task, indeed, to personally pass on 52 data sheets, giving in¬ 
formation of the most complicated nature which formed the founda¬ 
tion for all the work, check and approve 300 large and intricate 
drawings, 266 bill sheets, 1.141 tables of quantities and weights, and 
also check and pass through for payment 14,719 invoices, and at the 
same time get missing information and look after necessary changes 
that developed while the work was going through, and, besides all 
this, get an inspection force organized for mill, shop, foundry, etc., 
and look after 24 to 50 inspectors and clerks, the work being scat¬ 
tered over more than 30 different places. Mr. Hammer thought it 
was his personal duty to do all this, but no man was ever born who 
had the capacity to do what he had undertaken in the time allotted. 

The exceedingly fine requirements of workmanship demanded are 
amply illustrated in the following extracts from a letter written by 
Mr. John N. Ostrom to the Contractor under date of March 2, 1911. 
Mr. Ostrom is a bridge engineer, who has devoted practically all of 
his time for the past 30 years to the inspection of material and work¬ 
manship for bridges and steel structures. He is thoroughly familiar 
with the best practice in bridge work. The Contractor tried to em¬ 
ploy Mr. Ostrom to take charge of the work in the shop in order to 
have the Contractor’s men so manufacture the work that it would 
meet the requirements of the Commission. This the Contractor was 
unable to do as explained in his letter. 

I told you verbally the other day at a conference in your office that I would 
not he willing to go ahead with the Panama Canal lock gates for the reason 
that I considered it impossible to meet the requirements of the Government, as 
I understand it, namely, to get all the holes of length, breadth, and lieighth 
punched so accurately that they would clean up in reaming, particularly the 
holes punched in the curved flange angles before they were bent. 

I made this statement after several days of careful personal examination of 
the conditions at your plant, and as they seemed to me practically impossible I 
declined to go ahead with the work, since I would not attempt anything unless 
satisfied that I could deliver the goods. 

But I do not consider the work at all impossible or impracticable under the 
specifications if interpreted along the best lines of first-class shop work, and 
on this line I wish to call your attention to several points. 

No railroad bridge or other important structure was ever built where all 
the subpunched holes cleaned up perfectly to the nominal size, unless it was a 
combination of accidents where the + and — errors neutralized one another. 
Absolute accuracy is not even expected in first-class work. On the contrary, 
it is known that errors will occur, and when they are discovered the problem is 
how to make the work just as safe as designed without throwing away the 
material. 

In connection with the shop work, we submit herewith copies of 
three letters; the first a letter from Mr. Price, chief inspector, to Mr. 
Hammer, of the Commission, criticizing the workmanship on the 
lock gates; the second, the reply of Mr. Wagoner, inspector for the 
Contractor, dated February 29, 1912, addressed to Mr. Conley, gen¬ 
eral superintendent for the Contractor; the third, the reply dated 
March 5, 1912, of Mr. Reed, superintendent of shop No. 2 for the 
Contractor, addressed also to Mr. Conley. 


26 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO, 


Mr. Price to Mr. Hammer . 


February, 1912. 

Output of shop has averaged 100 tons per day. 

Conditions of workmanship: I regret to state that the workmanship in many 
respects is not up to our standard at the present time, and is not equal to work 
which has been turned out for the lock gates for the last six months or more. 
This refers especially to the least important members and certain conditions in 
the larger members, and shows poor and careless workmanship. In this respect, 
I wish to call your notice to the foot walk frames as reported February 15; the 
chamfered edge of chord angles as reported February 20, manhole covers as» 
reported February 21, and also conditions of A frames. Many of the end 
stiffener angles of A frames are either milled below the limit of thickness 
allowed or are not milled at all in certain parts, and to-day, for the first time 
in several months, we found a number of the stiffener angles too short to bear 
properly on the flange angles. There must be some cause for this condition at 
the present time. 

I wish to refer you to my last semimonthly report which states that during 
a certain period hundreds of A frames were fabricated which required little oi 
no correction. 

Bent plates: This member, which has never been entirely satisfactory, owing 
to its construction, which makes it difficult to fabricate and check, is open to 
severe criticisms. A number of the eleven-sixteenth inch holes have been 
reamed 1 inch by mistake, as reported February 20. Many of the countersunk 
rivets do not fill the countersink, and many are chipped below the surface of 
the end and bent plates. The planed edge which takes the thrust of the sheath¬ 
ing is in many cases not thoroughly planed, and the milled ends are not satis¬ 
factory in many instances. Paragraphs 20 and 21 of the original specifications 
call for the entire surface of end plates to be planed to a true surface after 
erection. This was modified by Mr. Goldmark August 8, 3910, to plane in the 
shop instead of in the field, and modified later to allow the end plates to be 
fabricated and accepted without planing, provided the work proved to be satis¬ 
factory. Taking into consideration the modification of the original contract, 
the shop should make special efforts to get this member satisfactory. 

Respectfully, 


Chief Inspector. 


Mr. Wagoner to Mr. Conley. 

Rankin, February 29, 1912. 

Mr. Conley, General Superintendent: 

In reply to attached letter from Mr. Price, chief inspector, Isthmian Canal 
Commission, I beg to advise that the shop is not doing poor and careless work; 
but, on the other hand, I believe we are putting more time on finishing the work 
than at any time since the work started. The footwalk frames referred to are 
the irregular shaped ones, samples of which can be seen in the section of leaf 
now assembled in the yard. The shop tried to rivet the frames without going 
to the expense of making so many special frames to hold them while riveting, 
but found they could not hold them, so are making frames to rivet them in 
and also shape up the ones already made. 

The chamfered edge of chord angles mentioned are short angles that carry 
one footwalk which call to have them rounded off, and a number of these should 
be and will be gone over. 

Manhole covers: Round corners were not exact to templet, but have clearance 
provided all around. 

A frames: When these frames were held up last week, I personally remarked 
to Mr. Price that I thought it was ridiculous for any man to hold these frames 
up, for out of the whole lot of them there were not more than two or three that 
were open to a difference of opinion. As you know, when it came to a show 
down, the whole lot of them was taken, about 16 frames. 

Bent plates: The bent plates being fabricated to-day, I believe, are as good 
as any that have been made, and certainly far superior to the first ones. A 
shop should not be charged with poor and careless work because now and 
then a few holes are reamed wrong size, a chipper gets slightly low in chipping 
countersunk heads, or heads chip off on account of brittleness of rivets. 

I do not believe that Mr. Price ever got better work than we are giving 
them, and I do not think he ever got as good. When you sum the whole letter 



McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO 


27 


up, you will readily see that there is no cause for writing a letter of complaint 
on the things mentioned, for any of these minor things as mentioned are always 
corrected without any fuss or trouble. 

W. N. Wagon eb. 


Mr. Reed to Mr. Conley. 


Mr. Conley, General Superintendent: 


Rankin, March 5, 1012. 


In reply to attached letter from Mr. Price, chief Government inspector, I 
can not see any cause for complaint against the workmanship at Jie present 
time. The inspectors are making us do a lot of extra work which we had not 
done previously. According to Mr. Price’s letter, this extra work must be the 
means of bringing it away from their standard. 

The footwalk frames referred to are the irregular shaped ones; samples of 
these can be seen in the section of leaf now assembled in yard. We tried to 
rivet the frames without going to the expense of making so many special 
frames to hold them while riveting, but found they could not hold them in 
proper shape, so we are making frames to rivet them in; also shape up those 
already made. 

They are rechamfering the edges of the guard rails for the footwalk in the 
machine shop now. These, they claimed, were not a good job. On the man¬ 
hole covers, there was plenty of clearance all around. The inspectors made 
us do extra chipping on these, which left a large hole on the corner. 

When the A frames were held up last week I told Mr. Hammer that there 
was only one out of the whole lot that I thought he could raise a question on; 
that one had a short chord angle. After he looked them over, he accepted them 
all. The bent plates that are being fabricated at the present time are as good 
as any we have turned out, with the exception of a few plates that had some 
rivets' countersunk a little too deep, which made the heads a little below the 
level of the plate. 

I think it would be well if Mr. Price would see that his men would get on 
the job, and do their work without having to be coaxed to inspect certain 
pieces, and they would be sure that these pieces were made to fit at the place 
they belonged, and do away with a lot of unnecessary polishing, which does the 
work no good after it is erected. Sometimes you can do too much on a job, 
which does more harm than good. 

As far as sliopwork is concerned at the present time, I think we have as 
good a standard of work as there is put out anywhere. Any corrections that 
had to be made received my personal attention as soon as I was informed of 


them. 

Respectfully, 


J. F. Reed, Superintendent. 


In the first letter—report of Mr. Price to Mr. Hammer—partic¬ 
ular attention is called to the statement relative to end plates in the 
paragraph headed “ Bent plates,” in which is stated that the re¬ 
quirements of the specifications that the end plates should be planed 
to a true surface after erection, was modified by Mr. Goldmark, 
designing engineer, for the Commission, August 8, 1910, to plane in 
the shop instead of in the field, and modified later to allow the 
end plates to be fabricated and accepted without planing, provided 
the work proved to be satisfactory, as this matter will be referred 
to again. 

The bolts that were required for the lock gates as called for m 
paragraph 34 of the Commission’s specifications the Contractor 
was aware would have to be very carefully made. This paragraph 
reads as follows: 

All bolts connecting heel, pintle, and end reaction castings to the leaf shall be 
turned to a driving fit. 



28 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


On account of the carefulness with which the work would have to 
be done, the Contractor purchased a special machine and employed 
an expert bolt maker in order that there would be no doubt about 
producing acceptable work. 

Below is given letter of Mr. C. M. Neeld, manager of the Bankin 
works of the Contractor, to Mr. Conley, general superintendent, 
cautioning him that special care must be taken in the manufacture of 
these bolts: 

Rankin, November 15, 1010. 

Mr. T. Conley, 

General Superin tenden t: 

On the turned bolts for Panama work, for which we have bought a 2-inch 
triple bolt cutter with milling attachment, please take it up with the smith 
shop and see if they have any means devised by which they can be sure that 
the thread is cut so that it will bring the face of the finished nut at perfect 
right angles to the body of the bolt. Milling and thread cutting will be two 
separate operations, and there is a possibility, in fact a probability, of the bolt 
not having exactly the same direction on the two settings, unless special care 
is taken. 

Very close inspection will be made on this by the Government inspection, 
and we want to be sure that it is provided for. 

C. M. Neeld, Manager. 

Notwithstanding all of the precautions taken by the Contractor 
to manufacture the bolts to satisfy the Commission, the work had 
to be abandoned, the materials and machine purchased discarded, and 
the order placed with the Pittsburgh Screw & Bolt Co. to furnish the 
bolts. 

Now, note the letter given below from bolt maker S. Ivress, whom 
the Contractor had employed to make the bolts, and who, after the 
work had to be abandoned, was employed by the Pittsburgh Screw 
& Bolt Co. This letter is addressed to Mr. S. C. Boocks, foreman of 
the blacksmith shop for the Contractor. 

Pittsburgh, Pa., July 1 , lOllf. 

McClintic-Marshall Construction Co., 

Mr. S. C. Boocks, 

Pittsburgh , Pa. 

Gentlemen : Confirming advice to your Mr. Guskey, this is to advise you that 
after I left your employ I went to work for the Pittsburgh Screw & Bolt Co., 
making turned bolts for the Panama lock gates. The number of bolts rejected 
made in the plant of the Pittsburgh Screw & Bolt Co. was comparatively few. 
I made these bolts on the same machine and in exactly the same manner as I 
had previously made them at your plant at Rankin. The bolts which I made 
for you were just as good, and probably somewhat better, than those which I 
made for the Pittsburgh Screw & Bolt Co. 

S. Kress. 

It is here stated that Kress made the turned bolts for the Panama 
lock gates for the Pittsburgh Screw & Bolt Co., and that the bolts 
were satisfactory, while the bolts he manufactured for the Contrac¬ 
tor were just as good, if not better, and were rejected. 

Here is brought out a condition of the inspection that needs no 
comment. The Contractor was not only obliged to furnish work of 
a higher class than called for by the specifications but also was 
obliged to submit to inspection of this character. Whatever the 
cause of this unreasonable and inconsistent inspection is not so 
pertinent. That it was unreasonable and inconsistent is wdiat 
affected the Contractor and added great expense, which he should 
not justly be called upon to bear. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


29 


Below is given, without comment, an interview between Mr. E. W. 
Pittman, manager for tbe Contractor at the Rankin plant, where the 
lock gates were manufactured, and Mr. Oliver A. Harber, one of the 
inspectors for the Commission at the Contractor’s plant. This in¬ 
terview was at Mr. Harber’s home on August 25, 1914: 

Mr. Pittman. Mr. Harber, we nave bled with the Government a claim for 
extra compensation on the lock-gate contract on account of the unreasonable 
requirements of the shop inspectors during the fabrication of the work at 
Rankin, and we are seeking disinterested testimony in support of our claim. 
Will you permit me to question you as to some phases of the inspection and 
submit your testimony with our claim? 

Mr. Harber. Yes. 

Mr. Pittman. During what time were you employed by the Isthmian Canal 
Commission as an inspector on tbe lock-gate work at our Rankin shop? 

Mr. Harber. Fifteen months. May 1G, 1911, to August 1G, 1912. 

Mr. Pittman. What portion of the work was assigned to you for inspection? 

Mr. Harber. Girders and some of the A frames. 

Mr. Pittman. Was this portion of the work executed to your satisfaction? 

Mr. Harber. Yes. 

Mr. Pittman. How did the workmanship compare with that of other first- 
class structural work that you have inspected? 

Mr. Harber. It was better. 

Mr. Pittman. Was there any question in your mind as to the acceptability 
of the large lot of girders that were held up for such a long time and finally 
accepted? 

Mr. Harber. No. 

Mr. Pittman. Did you become familiar by general observation with portions 
of the work assigned to other inspectors? 

Mr. Harber. Yes. 

Mr. Pittman. Do you not think that the other inspectors were unreasonable 
in their requirements as to precision in fit and finish? 

Mr. Harber. Yes. 

Mr. Pittman. Was the progress of the work unreasonably obstructed by their 
methods of inspection? 

Mr. Harber. Yes. 

Mr. Pittman. Did you often notice a congested condition of the lower end of 
the shop, due to work being held up by inspectors? 

Mr. Harber. Yes. 

Mr. Pittman. Do you not think this could have been avoided if the inspectors 
had cooperated with us? 

Mr. Harber. Yes. 

Mr. Pittman. Have you any further statement to make? 

Mr. Harber. Yes. If some of the inspectors had given more intelligent atten¬ 
tion to the work assigned to them instead of spending their time gossiping and 
criticizing other inspectors, much trouble would have been avoided, and the 
progress of the work would have been greatly improved. 

On difficult work of this sort it is good policy for an inspector to make careful 
observations on the various pieces at intermediate stages of their manufacture 
instead of waiting until the pieces are entirely finished before inspecting them. 
This practice obtains better results for the purchaser and at the same time aids 
the progress of the shopwork. It is the duty of an inspector to foresee and 
avoid shop errors and imperfections and thus reduce to a minimum the number 
of corrections to be made in a finished piece. Some of the inspectors failed to 
take this view of their duties. 

Much time was wasted taking micrometer measurements of rough shapes and 
plates in an effort to determine in advance the thickness to which work would 
pack out. In most cases the amount of this packing was unimportant, and the 
method of determining it was impractical. This measuring hindered the shop- 
work and did not give any useful information. 

I have had over 25 years’ experience in various branches of the inspection 
business and have gained experience in steel manufacture and shopwork of all 
kinds from rough to finely finished work required by the best specifications. 
The very highest grade of work was demanded and received on the lock gates. 


30 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


It has been stated before that the Contractor was forced to use 
much smaller holes than called for in the specifications. Paragraph 
36, page 12,1. C. C. 576, states: 

Material under three-fourths inch thick shall be punched with a punch one- 
eighth inch less in diameter than the nominal size of the rivet. After the ma¬ 
terial is thus punched or drilled, it shall, after assembling in the field, have all 
holes reamed out to a diameter one-sixteenth inch larger than the nominal 
size of the rivet. 

In accordance with this, the Contractor should have punched 
thrre-fourths-inch holes for seven-eighths-inch rivets to be reamed to 
fifteen-sixteenths inch; seven-eighths-inch holes for 1-inch rivets to 
be reamed to 1 T V inches. 

The first leaves under contract 4845—eight 54-foot 8-inch leaves— 
were so gotten out. Then trouble arose about these leaves at the shop. 
It was demanded from the Contractor that these holes be punched 
smaller—eleven-sixteenths inch throughout. Contracts 4847 to 4859 
were so gotten out. Mr. Jewel, the Contractor’s manager of erection 
at the Isthmus, objected to this and apparently took this matter up 
with Mr. Goldmark, as the Contractor received from Mr. Hammer, 
under date of January 12, 1912, the following note: 

I am in receipt of the following cable from the Isthmus: “Permit all rivet 
holes to be punched thirteen-sixteenths inch in shop. Die must not be more 
than one thirty-second inch larger than punch.” I am inclined to think it will 
be best to begin this new arrangement on the first new contract which will go 
through the shops. It is requested that this office be advised the contract num¬ 
bers on which you will punch rivet holes thirteen-sixteenths inch, as above 
indicated. It is also requested that shop drawings be revised in this respect 
for the new contracts. 

On the strength of this, contract 4861 was gotten out with three- 
fourths-inch holes for seven-eighths-inch rivets, and thirteen-six- 
teenths-inch holes for 1-inch rivets, the three-fourths-inch holes 
instead of thirteen-sixteenths-inch holes being apparently a conces¬ 
sion to meet Mr. Hammer’s wishes. 

Later on further objections were raised by Mr. Hammer to these 
larger holes, so that all the rest of the work had to be gotten out with 
eleven-sixteenths-inch holes throughout. 

These small holes caused most serious delay and enormous expense 
in the field, as will be brought out later. 

Third. That the Commission failed to furnish, in accordance with the terms 
of the contract, sufficient and suitable unoccupied storage grounds on the 
Isthmus for the materials of the Contractor. 

That the Commission obstructed the erection by its failure to keep water out 
of the lock chambers and in other ways. 

That the Commission, through its engineers, by forcing the Contractor to 
punch the holes for the field rivets smaller than called for by the specifications, 
greatly delayed the work in the field and increased the erection cost. 

Through these defaults of the Commission the work was delayed and the cost 
increased. 

Article 5 of the contract states: 

The following materials, services, and means will be furnished by the Com¬ 
mission : 

Suitable unoccupied grounds for the storage of the materials, convenient to 
the several lock sites, properly graded, and provided with sufficient railroad 
tracks of 5-foot gauge. 

The construction and maintenance of a railroad track close to one of the side 
walls of the locks and wherever feasible along the whole or a part of the other 
wall. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


31 


All necessary switching service from the storage grounds to the different gate 
sites and a reasonable number of flat cars of 5-foot gauge for the use of the 
contractor on the work. 


. The storage yards mentioned were not furnished by the Commis¬ 
sion. nor did they, from the records of the Contractor, ever attempt 
to do so. As to whether the Commission deliberately broke the con¬ 
tract, in order to save all the expense possible and forced the Con¬ 
tractor to get along as best he could, is a matter that will now be 
considered. The representative of the Contractor in charge of the 
erection of the lock gates on the Isthmus from the start of the erec¬ 
tion until about September 1. 1912. was Mr. L. L. Jewel, who, on 
account of ill health, is unable to make any statement. If Mr. Jewel 
made any agreement with the Commission relieving the Commission 
of their obligation to furnish the storage yards, the Contractor has 
no record of it. There are on file in the Pittsburgh office of the Con¬ 
tractor two drawings prepared by the Contractor showing general 
arrangement of erection plant and power-house foundations re¬ 
quired in the erection of the lock gates for both the Atlantic and 
Pacific divisions, and on these plans are shown two parallel tracks 
about 150 feet from the lock wall, running parallel full length of the 
lock chamber. These plans may have been submitted to the Com¬ 
mission with the idea that if the tracks shown were furnished and 
would be unoccupied, then the Commission would be relieved of fur¬ 
nishing the storage yards. 

In the following letter of Mr. Henry Goldmark, designing engi¬ 
neer for the Commission, to Mr. L. L. Jewel, it will be seen reference 
is made to an erection diagram submitted by Mr. Jewel, evidently 
one of the drawings referred to above: 


Culerra, November 1, 1911. 

Mr. L. L. Jewet., 

Manager of Erection , Gatun, Canal Zone. 

Sir : Replying to yours of October 28, regarding track on back fill at Pedro 
Miguel: 

Mr. Watt tells me to-day that bis foreman has instructions to put in the 
tracks exactly as shown on your blue print, meaning, I presume, the erection 
diagrams submitted by you. I understand that this arrangement of tracks 
will be satisfactory to you. Mr. Watt also tells me that this fill will be rock, 
so that there should be no trouble as to settlement, etc. 

Yours, truly, 


Henry Goldmark, Designing Engineer. 


During the year 1911 and the early part of 1912, after the Con¬ 
tractor had commenced work at Gatun and also at Pedro Miguel, 
the correspondence between the Commission and the Contractor 
shows that the Contractor was constantly delayed and frequently in¬ 
terrupted in the handling of the work on account of insufficient 
storage grounds, and the work stopped at numerous times by the 
interference of trains of the Commission on the same tracks on which 
the Contractor was trying to work. From this correspondence it 
is quite evident that if there was any agreement to relieve the Com¬ 
mission of its obligation to furnish the storage yards, then the Com¬ 
mission failed to keep its second agreement in not completing the 
back fill at the lock walls in time to give the Contractor uninter¬ 
rupted tracks to work on. In the correspondence in the possession 
of the Contractor there is no explanation on the part of the Com¬ 
mission as to why these storage yards were not furnished. 


32 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


Note below letter from Col. H. F. Hodges, acting chairman, to 
Mr. L. L. Jewel: 


Culebra, June 15, 1911. 


Mr. L. L. Jewel, Manager of Erection , 

McClintic-Marshall Construction Co., Gatun, Canal Zone. 

Sir: The receipt is acknowledged of your letter of June 2, 1911, in which you 
ask reconsideration of decision that rails located on your erection bridges are 
not properly to be considered yard tracks, and therefore are not properly to 
be furnished without charge by the Isthmian Canal Commission. 

The matter is not of very great importance, and I would gladly yield to your 
view if I could bring myself to the point where I thought it would be proper 
to do so. Article 5 of the contract required the Commission to furnish free of 
charge suitable unoccupied lands convenient to the several lock sites, properly 
graded and provided with sufficient railroad tracks of 5-foot gauge; also that 
it construct and maintain a railroad track close to one of the side walls of the 
lock and wherever feasible along the whole or a part of the other wall. I can 
not force from this wording the construction that the track on your erecting 
bridge is part of the yard which the Commission should furnish, and I must 
therefore adhere to the ruling already made, that the rails for this track are not 
properly to be furnished free of charge by the Commission. 

I regret that I am unable to see the matter from your point of view. 

Respectfully, 


H. F. Hodges, Acting Chairman. 


This letter, as it will be seen, declines to furnish' some extra rails 
to carry tracks across the erection bridges. It also clearly states 
what the Commission is obligated to do by the contract in the way 
of furnishing suitable unoccupied storage grounds, but gives no 
explanation as to why these storage grounds were not furnished. 

In the letter given below addressed to Mr. S. B. Williamson, 
division engineer of the Pacific division, signed by the chairman 
and chief engineer of the Commission, instructing Mr. Williamson 
to extend a certain track and thus make additional storage room 
for the Contractor, reference is made here that under the terms of 
the contract bv Extending this track the Commission would avoid 
the cost of switching charges which they would be required to do 
if the storage grounds had been furnished in accordance with the 
contract. 


Mr. 


Cui.ebra, Canal Zone, January 1/, 


S. B. Williamson, 

Division Engineer , Pacific Division , Corozal, Canal Zone. 


1912. 


Sir: Referring to the request of December 21 of the manager of erection of 
the lock gates for additional storage room at Pedro Miguel for bis material, 
and to subsequent correspondence on the matter, including your letter of 
December 23, I believe that the cheapest and most convenient way of handling 
this matter under the terms of the contract will be to provide additional 
storage ground by extending a track from the present main-yard track back 
of the tool house and office of the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. at 
Pedro Miguel, where there is sufficient -area practically level to provide for 
additional storage, the same to be laid by the Pacific division at the expense 
of the Commission. In this way the cost Ox switching, which, under the 
terms of the contract, would have to be borne by the Commission, will be 
eliminated. 

Please proceed accordingly. 

Respectfully, 


(Copy to Jewel and Guynn.) 


Geo. W. Goethals, 
Chairman and Chief Engineer. 


There is no question that the Commission saved a large amount 
of money by not furnishing storage grounds in accordance with their 
obligation—the cost of the storage grounds and tracks, and also 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


33 


the switching charges, as an engine and a train crew would have had 
to be in constant attendance at each lock, supplying the Contractor 
with the material covering the entire period of the erection of the 
work, which occupied over two and one-half years’ time. For the 
rapid and economical handling of the work the Contractor should 
have been furnished with storage yards and tracks and switching, as 
stated in the specifications. In a w T ork of the magnitude of the con¬ 
struction of the lock gates, before each pair of gates was started the 
material for these gates should have been in the storage yards, 
properly sorted, adjacent to the lock where it was to be erected, so 
that each different piece could be gotten as quickly as it was wanted. 

The storage yard adjacent to the locks at Gatun should have been 
large enough to store, properly handle, and sort material for 10 
gates, or 20 leaves, complete; at Pedro Miguel for 6 gates, or 12 leaves, 
complete; and 7 gates, or 14 leaves, at Miraflores. After the erection 
was once started it would have insured rapid and uninterrupted work 
in the field. 

The Contractor, by being compelled to do his work from the back 
fills (the filling not being completed until long after the erection had 
been started, and in some cases the erection finished before the filling 
was done), was greatly delayed and put to a large additional expense, 
the amount of which is hard to estimate. For a single instance, in 
the erection of the lower guard gates at Gatun (the fill not being 
far enough advanced so that the Commission could make a connection 
to the erection bridge when in its proper position to erect the lower 
guard gates), the gates had to be erected when the bridge was in 
position to erect the lower service gates, consequently the lower 
guard gates had to be erected with the miter ends pointing to the 
south in place of the north, and after they were partly finished had 
to be turned into their proper position. 

The justice of the above claim was fully admitted for all three 
locks by the engineers of the Commission of the respective divisions 
when the Contractor’s claim for an extension of time was discussed 
on the Isthmus in January, 1913, which later on resulted in the sup¬ 
plemental agreement establishing new contract dates. 

The records of the Contractor show that the lock chambers at 
Pedro Miguel were flooded as follows: 

May 13, 1912: Water for 3 days in the west chamber. 

July 12, 1912: Water in sump holes, which caused sickness amongst the Con¬ 
tractor’s men. 

July 16 to 26, 1912: Water for 10 days in the west chamber. 

July 31, 1912: Water for 3 days in the west chamber. 

September 17, 1912: Five feet of water in the west chamber. 

September 27, 1912: Six feet of water in both chambers. 

October 23, 1912: Six feet of water in both chambers for 5 days. 

November 13, 1912: Both chambers flooded for 7 days. 

At Miraflores, lower level, the Contractor’s record shows: 

June 15 to 17, 1913: Water in east chamber*. 

June 15 to 21, 1913: Water in west chamber. 

June 27, 1913: Water in both chambers. 

August 31 co September 8, 1913: Thirteen feet in west chamber. 

August 31 to September 17, 1913: East chamber flooded. 

Both at Pedro Miguel and Miraflores the water backing into the 
chambers interfered greatly with the various operations of the Con- 
29249 0 — H. Doc. 906, 64-1-3 


34 McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 

tractor’s work, and in numerous cases drowned and put out of work¬ 
ing order important tools, which, after the water receded, it took 
quite some time to get in shape again. 

The work was delayed and made more expensive also on account 
of the water supply of the Commission giving out at numerous times 
and the electric current furnished on many occasions being insuffi¬ 
cient. 

The Contractor’s records of these matters are as follows: 

At Pedro Miguel, up to the beginning of February, 1912, the water 
supply was insufficient; also November 26, 1912; and at Miraflores 
October 7, 1912; April 10, 1913; April 20, 1913; and May 19, 1913. 

At Gatun about March 12, 1913, the Contractor was short of water 
for two weeks to cool the compressors, thus interfering greatly with 
the driving of the rivets. 

The Contractor’s crane No. 18, about July 3, 1911, was completely 
wrecked by a gravel train operated by the Commission. The crane 
was repaired by the Commission at the Gorgona shops, but the Con¬ 
tractor lost the use of it for 98 days, delaying the Contractor’s work. 
For this time of 98 days the Contractor rendered the Commission a 
bill for $1,960. The bill was not paid. The use of the crane for the 
98 days it was being repaired was worth far more to the Contractor 
than the amount of the bill. 

These numerous interruptions caused by the acts of the Commis¬ 
sion increased the cost and delayed the work. 

The bolting up of the skin or sheathing plates of the leaves was a 
difficult proposition, made so by the requirements of the inspectors 
• at the shops. The specifications of the commission say that in 
finished work holes shall be punched one-eighth inch less than the 
diameter of the rivet. The rivets in general were seven-eighths inch 
and 1 inch diameter, making the punched holes three-fourths inch 
and seven-eighths inch diameter. On account of the rigid require¬ 
ments of the inspectors, the Contractor was compelled, in order to 
get the work accepted at the shops, to punch all holes for connections 
to the skin plates eleven-sixteenths-inch diameter. This necessitated 
the bolting up to be done with five-eighths-inch bolts, making it al¬ 
most an impossibility to get the work tight on account of the heavy 
sheathing plates. 

The mere fact that it was possible to use five-eighths-inch bolts for 
assembling this work, which was punched with eleven-sixteenths- 
inch holes, shows the extreme accuracy of the punching. 

On the first eight leaves manufactured—the upper guard gates 
at Gatun and Pedro Miguel—the holes were punched in accordance 
with the specifications, and for eight 77-foot leaves at Gatun they 
were punched very nearly so. As these gates when finished were en¬ 
tirely satisfactory and accepted, it shows that the requirements of 
punching the holes eleven-sixteenths-inch diameter was entirely 
useless and unnecessary. 

The bolting of the heavy sheathing plates with five-eighths-inch 
bolts necessitated great care in the work or the nuts would be pulled 
off the bolts. Slow and tedious work means delay, and to overcome 
delays it takes lots of men. Lots of men means lots of money, and 
the costs pile up. At Gatun at one time there were 1,000 men doing 
nothing but bolting up. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


35 


Fourth. That the Commission’s inspectors on the Isthmus were unreason¬ 
able in their requirements. 

That they insisted upon having the work executed contrary to the spirit of a 
previous agreement, and also on having work done distinctly not called for in 
the specifications. 

That they exceeded their authority by prescribing the method under which 
the work should be erected, and by insisting upon having this method car¬ 
ried out. 

That on account of the inadequate shop painting and unreasonable inspec¬ 
tion the Contractor was obliged to do unnecessary interior cleaning. 

On account of the above the Contractor was seriously delayed and put to 
large extra expense. 

We give below a statement of some of the important and unrea¬ 
sonable demands made by the inspectors on the Isthmus: 

(a) The Contractor was obliged to cut out, redrive, and waste 1,561,000 rivets 
over and above the number which would customarily be cut out, redriven, and 
wasted on high-class bridge or structural work. As the cost of cutting out rivets 
is greater than driving them, and the cost of redriving these rivets is very 
much greater than the original cost of driving, it is readily seen that the delay 
and additional cost from this source was enormous. 

(b) The nickel-steel bearing plates had been ground at the shops with the 
utmost precision to a practically perfect alignment. The specifications are 
entirely clear as to the method that should be pursued to adjust the same in 
the field, no grinding being called for whatever. Contrary to these require¬ 
ments, we had to grind them in the field, so that feelers four one-thousandths of 
an inch in thickness could not be inserted between these plates when the gates 
were closed, although no such limitation was established on the plans or in 
the specifications. This again caused additional delay and expense. 

(c) As it was proven that the planing of the ends of the leaves was not 
feasible and not necessary this planing had been waived* with # the proviso 
that the end reaction castings be made in one-story height against two-story 
heights called for and that any high spots caused by the riveting on these end 
plates in the shop or in the field be removed by grinding. A heavy canvas 
water stop was also provided between the end reaction castings and the end 
plates. The omission of the end planing was the main saving the Contractor 
counted on when he agreed to absorb a good deal of additional expense he had 
to incur on account of the necessary changes. Contrary to the spirit of this 
agreement, he had to grind the end plates to perfect planes in the field, causing 
a tremendous expense and delay. 

(d) The inspectors at Gatun and Pedro Miguel insisted on directing the 
order and methods of the successive steps of erection, thus delaying the progress 
and increasing the cost. At Miraflores the erection was carried on according 
to the Contractor’s own methods. 

(e) On account of the inefficiency of the single shop coat of paint and the 
unreasonable demands of the inspectors on the Isthmus the Contractor was 
required to clean the inside of the leaves before the bitumastic enamel was 
applied in a manner not contemplated by the specifications or demanded by 
the paint contractor. 

No difference can be shown between the specifications for high- 
grade bridge work now being constructed in this country and the 
specifications for the lock gates as regards field work, but when a 
comparison is made between the actual field requirements for high- 
grade structural or bridge work and the requirements for the lock 
gates as enforced at the Isthmus a great difference is apparent. 

One of the big jobs in connection with the erection of the canal 
gates on the Isthmus was the driving of rivets—about 5,730,000 be¬ 
ing required in the work. In high-grade bridge work constructed by 
the Contractor, like the cantilever bridge for the Pittsburgh & Lake 
Erie Railroad over the Ohio River at Beaver, Pa., amounting to 
about 16,000 tons of structural steel, and the Winner Bridge over the 
Missouri River at Kansas City, Mo., requiring about 18,000 tons of 


36 


McCLIN TIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


structural steel, the rejections by the inspectors of the number of 
rivets driven compared with that of the lock gates shows a very high 
degree of refinement in the requirements for the lock gates—almost 
beyond conception as compared with bridge work. 

The condemnation of the number of rivets driven in the field for 
the cantilever bridge over the Ohio River at Beaver was about 2^ 
per cent of the total number driven, and in the Winner Bridge at 
Kansas City over the Missouri River about 3£ per cent of the total 
number of rivets driven. 

Under the most severe inspection on high-grade bridge work Con¬ 
tractors in estimating consider that the rejections will never run 
over 5 per cent. Never are more than 10 per cent excess field rivets 
provided in any contract to cover both rejections and losses, and a 
liberal portion of these rivets are as a rule returned to the shop. 
For the lock gates there were actually used up over 7,865,000 field 
rivets, an excess of over 2,135,000 filed rivets, or about 37.25 per cent 
over and above the 5,730,000 rivets that actually were required for 
the finished leaves—an appalling proposition to the Contractor who 
had to do the work. 

Mr. J. O. Childers, general superintendent for the Contractor on 
the Isthmus, from about September 1, 1912, to the finish of the work, 
and who also had charge of the erection of the cantilever bridge at 
Beaver, Pa., and the Winner Bridge over the Missouri River at Kan¬ 
sas City, both previously referred to, in a signed statement says: 

The inspection on riveting at Gatun, and to a certain extent at Pedro Miguel, 
was the most rigid I ever experienced. In other words, on first inspection, 
nothing but a perfect rivet would be passed. Hundreds of thousands of rivets 
were cut out which would have answered every requirement on any other job. 
In many cases good rivets were cut out and redriven so often that the plates 
were damaged, and the rivets finally accepted were inferior to those first driven. 

Mr. Charles Welker, superintendent at Pedro Miguel, for the Con¬ 
tractor, states: 

Riveting was much higher (meaning cost) on account of inspection. A rivet 
out of line one-fourth inch had to be cut out, or one that had been marked with 
a maul in cutting out others; or one that had a trifle too much stock, or if the 
inspector imagined he felt a jar, he would not pass it. In cutting out the rivets 
it bends and jars the iron and loosens other good rivets around them, which 
finally had to come out and be redriven. If in reaming the holes (outside and 
inside these did not match) or if it left a hole a little out of round in the outside 
sheathing which could easily be filled with a rivet, it would not be passed. The 
hole had to be drilled out to a perfect hole and a large rivet used to fill the 
hole. In some cases it was necessary to have the blacksmith make a rivet large 
enough to fill such holes. The inspection was just as stiff above the water-tight 
compartments as below. 

Mr. Grant Courter, for a while superintendent for the Contractor 
at Pedro Miguel, states: 

On account of the severe inspection of the rivets by the inspectors, who in 
my opinion were prejudiced against the negroes, and cut out rivets that were 
positively good, in order to make our company put on all white shipyard 
riveters, we were compelled to keep a force of men cutting out rivets all the 
time, which made the rivets cost 30 cents apiece, instead of from 5 to 7 cents, as 
on all high-class structural work. 

The grinding of the end plates before the reaction castings were 
placed on the leaves was work where the requirements of the inspec¬ 
tors were very severe. On page 31 reference is made to a report of 
the chief inspector to Mr. Hammer, stating that the requirements of 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


37 


the specification to plane these plates in the field was waived alto¬ 
gether if a satisfactory job was made of the work in the shop. What 
motive could be back of such action to make the Contractor make 
these plates perfect in the shop under the most rigid inspection, in 
order that the planing in the field be waived, and then after the work 
was erected require the Contractor to spend an enormous sum in 
grinding these plates until they looked like mirrors ? 

Mr. J. O. Childers, general superintendent for the Contractor on 
the Isthmus, in a signed statement with reference to grinding, says: 

I am confident that the same results could have been obtained with 75 per 
cent less grinding than was done. One instance of the inspection of this part 
of the work I will cite. The quoin end of leaf No. 12, our master mechanic 
continually complained about the unnecessary grinding required by the in¬ 
spectors. I instructed him to grind this particular end of leaf No. 12 to what 
he considered a first-class job, and if the inspectors refused to pass it, to notify 
me. The inspector was called and inspected seven panels, condemning five and 
refused to inspect the other nine, claiming that the work was absolutely rotten. 
After inspecting the work myself and finding it practically perfect, I notified 
Mr. Dumville, head inspector for the Commission at Gatun, who then inspected 
and passed the entire end with the exception of one small spot, which required 
10 minutes grinding. 

This is another illustration, previously referred to under shop 
inspection, of the apparent indifference of the inspectors to pass any¬ 
thing, no matter how carefully and thoroughly the work had been 
done. 

There can be no question that the requirements of the field inspec¬ 
tion were for far superior workmanship than high-grade bridge or 
ship work, remembering that these great doors or leaves, some of 
them 82 feet in height and weighing 750 tons each, were made to 
close with all the accuracy of the lids of a watch case, and yet a 
watch case is not waterproof, but these gates are waterproof with 
respect to the bearings at the miter and quoin ends, remembering also 
that these bearings were so true to their full height of 82 feet that 
when the leaves were closed by hand, and not with the pressure of a 
lock full of water back of them, that an inspector could not insert 
a narrow metal gauge of the thickness of four one-thousandths of 
an inch in the full height at the miter and quoin ends or at the sills 
at the bottom. If he could do so at any point, the work was re¬ 
jected, and then, considering that the Commission says that for 
machine-shop work referred to in circular 636 for rising-stem gate 
valves, that they want the work made to an accuracy of plus or minus 
one sixty-fourth of an inch, and here in the lock gates the accuracy 
insisted upon by the inspectors for the bearings at the miter and 
quoin ends and the sills at the bottom is the accuracy of one-fourth 
of one sixty-fourth of an inch. Is not then the lock-gate construc¬ 
tion a far finer grade of machine-shop work than the manufacture 
of the rising-stem gate valves? The marvel of it all is that the 
gates were ever finished under such inspection. 

With reference to this field inspection, there is given in full, 
without comment, a letter of Mr. E. K. Morse, well-known engineer 
of Pittsburgh: 

Pittsburgh, Pa., March 5, lVlJ/. 

Mr. H. H. McGlintic, 

McClintic-Marshall Construction Co., Hotel Raleigh, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir : You telephoned me this afternoon asking that I immediately write 
you a short note containing a few of the observations I made of the steelwork in 
the locks and dams of the Panama Canal, for which you were the Contractor. 


38 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


I spent seven days in the canal during the month of March, 1912, bunking in 
the Y. M. C. A.’s and messing with the men, living the life they did and dressing 
as they dressed. My object in so doing was to obtain direct information and 
experiences of the laboring classes and mechanics—first-hand information. By 
sacredly refraining from asking any of the men his name, residence, history, 
or anything of like nature, I soon disarmed any suspicion of a gum-shoe man. 
and the information that I received was of so confidential a character that I 
have, as you well know, refrained from publishing or giving any expression of 
the information that I received. In fact, it was only two weeks ago that you 
ever heard me express myself regarding your own construction. I will now cite 
two cases which will illustrate clearly the character of the field work that you 
were compelled to do. 

The first instance is a case of grinding the miter plates of the lock gates to a 
perfect bearing. The inspector in charge of the case I have in mind had a steel 
straightedge which he kept placing on the face that was being polished in every 
angle of the circle, and if the contact between the plate and the straightedge was 
not absolutely perfect the polishing was continued. It has continued for 42 
days on one plate, up to and including the day that I was examining same, and 
was far from being complete. That evening I met the designer of the gate at 
the Y. M. C. A. at Culebra and asked him this one question: “ What would be 
the amount of warp in the depth of the gate with the sun shining on one side 
and a shadow on the other?” This condition obtained every clear day and for 
hours during the day. His reply was—seven-eighths of an inch out of line. In 
other words, that same plate which the inspector was having polished to an 
absolutely true line, and had spent 42 days doing it—and so far as I could see 
was not over half done at the time I was examining the plate and getting this 
information direct—would warp seven-eighths of an inch. That is, every sun¬ 
rise to noontime, or not later than 2 o’clock, at that specific point that I have in 
mind, that plate would warp out of line seven-eighths of an inch. 

At another gate I stood for a while watching an inspector have rivets 6 
inches long cut off and backed out by a riveting gang because the heads of the 
rivets were slightly eccentric. I said to him, “Are you not doing more damage 
to the plates by having that rivet cut out than you will accomplish good by 
having a new one driven? ” He turned on me fiercely and said that McClintic- 
Marshall had gone over the heads of the inspectors trying to make it hot for 
them and to wait until they got ready to calk the rivets in the gate and he 
would give them a piece of inspection that would teach them a lesson, that he 
had come from a * * * shipbuilding plant where they knew how to work 
and there was not a * * * riveter on the job that knew anything about 
driving or calking a ship rivet * * * and that when the time came he 

would teach them what inspection was and that there was a hot time ahead. 
It is needless to say that this made my blood boil, because it recalled the ex¬ 
perience that Hyland and I had in the erection of the Hawkesbury River Bridge 
in Australia in 1887, 1888, and 1889, when we complained to Sir Benjamin 
Baker and Sir John Fowler in London. Our right to a claim was not anything 
like as just as yours. Every item of our estimate of unnecessary cost was 
allowed us by these English engineers, and if you get anything like as fair 
treatment from the United States Government as Ryland and I got from the 
English Government, my short experience in the canal leads me to believe that 
yours is not only just but extremely large in magnitude. 

I have spent all my life since 1874 as a laborer in my brother’s bridge 
works, 15 years of my life as erector and contractor for same, and the balance 
of the time as a consulting engineer in the designing and construction of 
bridges, so that it is needless to say that much of my time was spent in and 
around the locks of the Panama Canal and my observations and conclusions 
are correct. 

Respectfully, yours, E. K. Morse, 

Member Ameriean Society Civil Engineers. 

When Mr. Wolfel was on the Isthmus during January, 1913, the 
large number of rivets which were being cut out was discussed. 
During the discussion it developed that the reason for cutting out 
a large percentage of the rivets was that the heads were not in perfect 
alignment, also referred to in letter of Mr. Morse and Supt. Welker 
quoted above. In discussing this matter with Mr. Goldmark he 
gave his reason that on all such rivets the heads in all probability 


McCLINTlC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


39 


were not concentric with the shaft, but it was pointed out to him that 
on account of the nature of the work (subpunched and field reamed) 
the holes might be slightly out of line. A test case was made where 
the inspector condemned a number of rivets for no other reason than 
being out of line. The heads of IT of the worst of these rivets were 
cut off on the inside of the leaf and then were backed out of the hole, 
leaving the made head or the head to which the objection had been 
raised attached to the shank of the rivets. These rivets were then 
submitted to Mr. Goldmark, and he was shown that 50 per cent of the 
rivets were perfect, of the remainder 25 per cent were somewhat 
eccentric but not enough to warrant condemnation, and the remaining 
25 per cent were questionable. 

That the inspectors exceeded their authority by prescribing the 
method under which the work should be erected, and by insisting 
upon having this method carried out, is best brought out by two 
reports of Mr. J. O. Childers, general superintendent for the Con¬ 
tractor on the Isthmus, who states as follows: 

On taking charge in August, 1912, I found that the inspectors employed by 
the Isthmian Canal Commission were practically in charge of and dictating the 
method of erection. 

The method of erection at that time was to place the first five or six girders 
and then plumb them up, which in many cases consumed considerable time, and 
from that time plumbing up was required after placing one or two girders; and 
as the leaf was continually changed as weight was added (to it), the plumbing 
done was completely lost the next time more weight was added. We consumed 
as much as five days in this useless plumbing on one set of leaves. In many 
instances the raising and yard gangs were tied up with nothing to do while this 
plumbing was being done. 

After thoroughly going over these details and the construction of the leaves, 
I evolved a scheme of erection which meant the elimination of that needless 
plumbing up, but Mr. Dumville, the head inspector at Gatun, would not consent 
for us to try out this scheme; and as we were in no condition to make a fight 
at the time* I was forced to submit and allow erection to proceed in the old 
manner. On an average six days were required in which to erect the skeletons 
of two leaves at Gatun. 

The erection not having been started at Miraflores when I took charge, the 
plan of erection was taken up with Mr. Howe, the head inspector at that place, 
and after some time he agreed that the first four leaves should be erected in 
accordance with my plan. 

This plan was employed in the erection of all the work at Miraflores, with the 
result that two leaves were erected in less than one day, or 36 girders placed in 
eight hours. We found that after the erection of these leaves in this manner 
they were plumbed in less than a day’s time. 

On another occasion Mr. Childers states about this: 

At Gatun our raising gang was considerably handicapped by the inspectors 
demanding that the steel be erected according to their idea as to how it should 
be erected. I should judge that the cost of the erection at Gatun was increased 
at least 50 per cent by the interference of inspectors. At Pedro Miguel the 
erection was practically completed when I took charge. We were not inter¬ 
fered with by the inspectors at Miraflores. 

It will be seen from this that these occurrences were confined to 
Gatun and Pedro Miguel, which is typical, as the actions of the 
inspectors at these sites were unreasonable beyond conception, while 
Mr. Howe at Miraflores gave us all help possible, except that he, too, 
had to live up to the unreasonable requirements as to riveting, grind¬ 
ing, etc., although he did this in a much lesser degree than was done 
at the other two sites. 

The unnecessary cleaning of the interior of the leaves was another 
item of large expense to the Contractor. 


40 McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 

Owing to climatic conditions and to the kind of paint which was 
applied to the material on the inside of the leaves at the shop, there 
was considerable rust formed during the period of erection, which 
largely increased the amount of cleaning on the inside of the leaves 
before enameling. 

From the time this work started at Gatun the Contractor’s men in 
charge continually complained of the inspectors. This matter was 
taken up repeatedly with Mr. Guynn and Mr. Dumville, but the 
Contractor was unable to get any relief, and the inspection continued 
to grow so much more rigid on this part of the work that it was 
well-nigh impossible to get a leaf passed. 

After leaf No. 6 had been rejected with the statement that if the 
Contractor w T ould give it two more days’ cleaning they would again 
inspect it, the superintendent of the Contractor in charge at once 
inspected the part of the leaf rejected and found it clean. He 
ordered all men out of the leaf and asked Mr. Dumville to accept 
the leaf and not allow the man who had condemned it to do any 
more inspecting; otherwise he would demand an investigation. Mr. 
Dumville refused this request. The matter was taken up with the 
chairman, and Col. Dixon was appointed to inspect the leaf and 
report to the chairman. The inspection was made and the leaf ac¬ 
cepted with little or not additional cleaning. 

The method of inspecting the leaves for inside cleaning was to 
rub the hand over the surface and if it became soiled the leaf was 
rejected. 

The expense incurred by the Contractor for cleaning the interior 
of these leaves is as follows: 

Miraflores, 28 leaves, $17,551, or $627 per leaf. 

Pedro Miguel, 24 leaves, $14,883, or $621 per leaf. 

Gatun, 40 leaves, $77,269, or $1,932 per leaf. 

This bears out above statement about the kind of cleaning the 
Contractor had to do at Gatun, and incidentally bears out the previ¬ 
ous statement as to the severeness of the Gatun inspection. 

A large part of the cleaning in the first place was caused by the 
bitumastic paint called for in the specifications being inadequate to 
meet the climatic conditions at the Isthmus. This is borne out by 
correspondence with Mr. Jewel, also by Mr. Hammer’s letter of 
June 1, 1911, in which he states: - 

Referring to lock-gate material received on the Isthmus, I beg to call your 
attention to some serious trouble found with material painted with bitumastic 
solution: 

I have been informed in telegram of this date that large rust spots have 
occurred within a few weeks after unloading the material on the Isthmus. The 
bitumastic solution used for the shop coat is therefore considered unsatisfac¬ 
tory, and no more bitumastic solution must be used on material before the 
matter has been investigated. 

This is further borne out by a supplemental agreement entered into 
December 6, 1911, between the Commission and the Contractor, in 
which the Commission agrees to pay the Contractor $158,120 to 
change the bitumastic paint on the interior of the leaves originally 
specified to bitumastic enamel. The Contractor is sure that on 
account of the inefficiency of the paint called for, even at Miraflores 
and Pedro Miguel, the cost for this interior cleaning was at least 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


41 


doubled, while at Gatun of course the Contractor had a big addi¬ 
tional waste of money, pure and simple, due to the over-exacting 
conditions imposed upon the Contractor by the inspectors. 

Fifth. That taking into account the extension of time to which the Con¬ 
tractor was entitled on account of the delays caused by the Commission, he 
was required to and did complete the work in a much shorter time than that 
provided for in the contract. 

That in order to meet these requirements of the Commission the Contractor 
had to resort to a large amount of rush work, which again caused enormously 
increased costs in the field. 

That even if the delays previously described had not occurred much of 
this expensive rush work would have been necessary on the leaves at Pedro 
Miguel and Miraflores, as the masonry for these leaves was very much behind 
the dates established in the contract, making the time available for the erec¬ 
tion of these leaves too short for carrying on the field operations in an economi¬ 
cal way, when the kind of work that had to be done in the field is taken into 
consideration. 

It will be noted that serious delays occurred. A claim for exten¬ 
sion of time w 7 as made by the Contractor, under date of December 7, 
1912, modified, after further investigation at the Isthmus, by letter 
to Mr. Goldmark, under date of January 18, 1913. As a result of 
this claim, a supplemental agreement w r as entered into, under date 
of May 20, 1913, between the Commission and the Contractor, estab¬ 
lishing new T contract dates under w 7 hich the gates had to be finished 
so that water could be turned into the canal and the gates operated. 
The vital dates of this agreement are: October 1, 1913, being the 
date of completion for all guard gates and all other gates on one 
side of the canal; and March 1, 1914, being the date of completion 
for the balance of the work. It is still claimed by the Contractor 
that the dates established in his letter of January 18, 1913, were 
reasonable and fair. In accordance with this letter the last gates 
need not have been completed until April 8, 1914. It should be 
stated here, how 7 ever, that in arriving at the dates given in this let¬ 
ter of January 18, 1913, the Contractor made no allowance and put 
in no claim for the time required to do the additional work not 
called for or contemplated under the contract. It has been show 7 n 
that such work had to be done, causing great extra expense. This 
being established, it naturally follows that such extra work also 
takes time, and that work like bolting up with small holes, clean¬ 
ing to a polish, etc., takes lots of time. Therefore, considerable time 
should be added to the dates established in the Contractor’s letter of 
January 18, 1913, making the fair date for completion much later 
than April 8, 1914. 

For reasons best known to the Commission, the Contractor was 
urged to use every effort and spare no expense to complete the w 7 ork 
covered bv this contract as soon as possible. 

As a matter of fact, the dates of the supplemental agreement were 
actually anticipated by the Contractor, the work called for to be 
finished by October 1, 1913, and March 1, 1914, being finished by 
September 24, 1913, and January 26, 1914, respectively. 

This, however, could only be accomplished by an immense amount 
of overtime and rush work at a very large expense to the Con¬ 
tractor, and for this expense the Contractor claims that he is fairly 
and justly entitled to proper compensation. 


42 


McCLINTIC-MAKSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


The masonry for the gates at Pedro Miguel and Miraflores was 
delayed beyond the dates established in the contract as follows: 

Leaves 50 to 57, Pedro Miguel, 3J months. 

Leaves 58 to 61, Pedro Miguel, 4 months. 

Leaves 62 to 73, Pedro Miguel, 8 months. 

Leaves 100 to 107, Miraflores, 4 months. 

Leaves 108 to 111, Miraflores, no information. 

Leaves 112 to 115, Miraflores, 3 months. 

Leaves 116 to 119, Miraflores, 6 months. 

For leaves 120 to 127 at Miraflores, the masonry for which should 
have been completed by November 1, 1912, the masonry was not 
finished on January 20, 1913, but was expected to be finished soon 
thereafter. 

Sixth. That the Contractor has not received adequate compensation for the 
water stops that had to be used to make the work water-tight, although not 
called for on the plans or in the specifications. 

Water stops were not called for in the specifications and their use 
vigorously opposed by Mr. Goldmark. Later on it developed that 
they had to be used to make the work water-tight. For the plain 
material for these water stops the Contractor paid $7,560. For these 
stops, soaked in red lead and linseed oil, erected in place, the Com¬ 
mission paid the Cotractor $222.25. This payment was made on. the 
strength of paragraph 5, page 7,1. C. C. 576, which reads: 

Rubber gaskets and all packing in items 4 and 10 will be paid for at the 
same rate per pound as the metallic parts in the items in question. 

This clearly does not apply to the water stops. 

Amount of claims. 


1. Extra cost of working drawings, due to delay in furnishing 

complete designs and data, to changes made, and to delay 

in the approval of working drawings_ $8, 890. 00 

2. Increased cost of fabrication due to delay in furnishing the 

Contractor the necessary data, unfair demands of the Com¬ 
mission’s engineers, and unreasonable shop inspection_ 320, 892. 00 

3. Material rejected or put in stock on account of unreasonable 

inspection- 48, 621. 00 

4. Extra cost of water stops, soaked in red lead and linseed oil, 

put in place- 21,094.75 

5. Loss on shop output, due to delays, unfair demands of the 

Commission’s engineers, and unreasonable inspection_ 123, 660. 00 


6. Extra cost of erection due to conditions imposed upon the Con¬ 
tractor contrary to the contract requirements, also to condi¬ 
tions that caused extra expense, which should be borne by 
the Commission, to unreasonable inspection in the field, and 
to the necessity of completing the work within the time de¬ 
manded, in spite of numerous delays caused by the Com¬ 
mission and the extra work necessary on account of the con¬ 


ditions mentioned above and unreasonable inspection_ 1, 218, 475. 00 

7. Extra cost of erection outfit required to complete the work 

within the time demanded_ 200, 000. 00 

Total- 1, 941, 632. 75 

The amount of claims are arrived at as follows: 


1. Extra cost of working drawings, due to delay in furnishing complete 
designs and data, due to changes made and due to delay in the approval of 
working drawings, $8,890. 

This amount is the difference between the actual cost of these 
working drawings and a careful estimate of what the drawings 











McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


43 


actually furnished for the work should have cost had the design been 
complete, had no changes been made and had the drawings been ap¬ 
proved promptly. 

2. Increased cost of fabrication due to delay in furnishing the Contractor 
the necessary data, unfair demands of the Commission’s engineers, and un¬ 
reasonable shop inspection, $320,892. 

This amount is the difference between the actual cost of this work 
and what it should have cost under reasonable demands and inspec¬ 
tion. The shop labor and surcharge on the lock gates was over $4 
per ton higher than the average cost of all the work turned out in the 
same shop for the year preceding and the year succeeding the fab¬ 
rication of the lock gates. This work should have been done at about 
$2 per ton less than the average cost of all the work for the pre¬ 
ceding and succeeding years for the reason that there was so much 
duplication in the work and such a large proportion of work simply 
punched and drilled without being assembled or riveted. This 
difference in cost of $6 per ton is borne out by a careful estimate of 
the work based on the Contractor’s established piecework rates for 
the different classes of w T ork and the further fact that the shop 
labor and surcharge for these gates was over $6 per ton higher than 
for high-grade bridge work turned out by the contractor during this 
period; for example, the truss spans of the Winner Bridge at 
Kansas City, the truss spans on the New York connecting work— 
both of which are the highest class work. 

The loss from the unreasonable demands of the engineers and in¬ 
spectors is 53,482 tons at $6 per ton=$320,892. 

3. Material rejected or put in stock on account of unreasonable inspection, 
$48,621. 

This amount is made up as follows: 


600,000 pounds, at $2.75-$16, 500 

Excess rivets cut out, 1,458,000 rivets, or 1,267,000 pounds, at $2.45__ 31, 041 
Bolt material put in stock, 90 tons, at $12- 1, 080 


Total_ 48, 621 

4. Extra cost of water stops, soaked in red lead and linseed oil, put in place, 
$21,094.75. 

The canvas, paint, and labor for these water stops cost: 

Canvas_$7, 564. 00 

Red lead- 5,580.00 

Placing_ 028. 00 

Total_ 22,072.00 


Used for other purposes (see Exhibit 83, Wolfel)- $755. 00 

Amount paid contractor- 222. 25 


977. 25 

The Contractor has been allowed payment on the nominal number 
of yards of water stops called for on detail drawings at the rate gov¬ 
erning for item No. 1 of contract, or for 5,872 pounds, at $3,785 per 
hundred pounds, a total of $222.25. Considerable more canvas was 
actually used than called for by the detail drawings. 

The amount due the Contractor is the difference between $22,072 
and $222.25=$21,094.75. 
















44 


McCLINTIC-MAESHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


5. Loss on shop output due to delays, unfair demands of the Commission’s 
engineers, and unreasonable inspection, $123,660. 


On page 72 we give table showing output of shop No. 2, the shop 
in which the lock gates were fabricated, for the year preceding and 
the year succeeding the period of 26 months, during which time the 
lock gates were manufactured. From this table it will be noted that 
the average monthly output of the shop for the year preceding and 
the year succeeding the manufacture of these gates was 3,451 tons, 
while the average monthly output of the shop for the 26 months 
during the fabrication of these gates was 2,562 tons, a loss of 889 
tons per month. The total loss in output of the shop for the 26 
months was 26 times 889 tons=23,114 tons. 

By an inspection of the table it will be seen that the output of the 
shop began to drop immediately after the manufacture of these gates 
was started in November, .1910, dropping from 3,724 tons in No¬ 
vember, 1910, to 2,631 tons in December, 1910, and still further to 
2,098 tons in January, 1911, 1,132 tons in February, 1911, and 1,290 
tons in March, 1911. This loss in output was entirely due to the un¬ 
reasonable inspection and conditions imposed upon the Contractor 
by the Commission’s engineers and inspectors. 

The average profit made on the entire tonnage turned out by the 
Contractor for the year preceding the lock-gate work and for the year 
succeeding the lock-gate fabrication was approximately $5.35 per 
ton. Consequently, the resultant loss on the reduced output due to 
the unfair demands of the Commission’s engineers and the unreason¬ 
able inspection was 23,114 tons, at $5.35 per ton, or $123,660. 


Output shop No. 2 during lock-gate 


fabrication: 

Tons. 

December, 1910_ 2, 631 

January, 1911_ 2, 098 

February, 1911_ 1,132 

March, 1911_ 1,290 

April, 1911_ 2,173 

May, 1911_ 2,181 

June, 1912_ 2,601 

July, 1911_ 3,106 

August, 1911_ 3.554 

September, 1911_ 3, 501 

October, 1911_ 2,569 

November, 1911_ 2, 549 

December, 1911_ 2,017 

January, 1912_ 2, 711 

February, 1912_ 2,543 

March, 1912_ 2, 840 

April, 1912_ 2, 607 

May, 1912_ 3, 003 

June, 1912_ 2,601 

July, 1912_ 2,679 

August, 1912_ 2, 716 

September, 1912_ 2, 488 

October, 1912_ 3, 047 

November, 1912_ 2, 963 

December, 1912_ 2, 340 

January, 1913_ 2,200 


Total for 26 months_ 66, 621 


Average output during lock-gate fab¬ 
rication, 2,562 tons. 


Output shop No. 2 for preceding and 


succeeding year: 

Tons. 

December, 1909_ 3,108 

January, 1910_ 3, 935 

February, 1910_ 3, 072 

March, 1910_ 3, 329 

April, 1910_ 3, 909 

May, 1910_ 3,413 

June, 1910_ 3,922 

July, 1910_ 3,601 

August, 1910_ 4 , 612 

September, 1910_ 4 , 214 

October, 1910_ 3,580 

November, 1910_ 3 , 724 

February, 1913_ 2, 702 

March, 1913_ 2, 818 

April, 1913_ 2, 751 

May, 1913_ 2, 728 

June, 1913_ 3,405 

July, 1913_ 3 , 404 

August, 1913_ 3,167 

September, 1913_ 3 , 332 

October, 1913_ 4 , 073 

November, 1913_ 3 ’ 003 

December, 1913 __ 3 ' 931 

January, 1914_ 3 ’ 103 


Total for 24 months_ 82, 836 


Average monthly output for preced¬ 
ing and succeeding months, 3,451 tons. 





















































McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


45 


6. Extra cost of erection due to conditions imposed upon the Contractor con¬ 
trary to the contract requirements, also to conditions that caused extra expense, 
which should be borne by the Commission, to unreasonable inspection in the field, 
and to the necessity of completing the work within the time demanded in spite 
of delays caused by the Commission, and the extra work necessary on account 
of the conditions mentioned above and unreasonable inspection, $1,218,475. 

The tonnage furnished and erected, the erection cost incurred at 
the Isthmus, and the corresponding rate per ton at the three sites are 
as follows: 


Location. 

Tonnage. 

Total cost 

Cost per 
ton. 

Gatun. 

25,498 

14,924 

17,752 

$1,372,641 
886,107 
911,259 

J53.83 

59.37 

51.32 

Pedro Miguel. 

Miraflores. 

Total.. 

58,174 

3,170,007 

54.50 



To this should be added transportation, liability, and general ex¬ 
pense incurred at the Isthmus, amounting to $391,891, giving a total 
of $3,561,898, or $61.20 per ton. 

This amount is exclusive of erection equipment furnished from the 
States. 

The wide divergence in the cost per ton at the three sites is ex¬ 
plained as follows: 

While at Miraflores there was some trouble about the yards and 
tracks (claim 11 days), 1 this trouble was a great deal worse at Gatun 
(claim 50 to 75 days), and by far worse at Pedro Miguel (claim 40 
to 100 days). 

The inspection at Gatun and Pedro Miguel was much more severe 
than at Miraflores, as has been proven by the interference of the 
inspectors with the Contractor’s erection method, by the cost of the 
cleaning of the interior of the leaves at the three sites, and as will be 
shown by the amount of the excess riveting. 

Serious delay and expense was incurred at Pedro Miguel on ac¬ 
count of water in the chambers (claim 30 days). This claim was 
admitted by Mr. Goldmark to be, if anything, too low, and the Con¬ 
tractor is satisfied from further investigation at the Isthmus that it 
was very much too low. 

Some similar delay occurred at Miraflores (although not nearly 
as aggravated) as at Pedro Miguel. 

For all these reasons given the costs at Gatun and Pedro Miguel 
would naturally be higher than at Miraflores. The extent, however, 
to which these causes increased the erection expense is hard to es¬ 
tablish. On the other hand, the erection cost at Miraflores was 
increased on account of the very expensive rush work necessary at 
this site. This amount, however (as will be shown later), establishes 
itself from the erection costs of the different sets of leaves at Mira¬ 
flores. For these reasons a normal erection cost will be established 
for the leaves at Miraflores by deducting from the actual cost the 
amounts for which the Contractor holds the Commission responsible. 


1 This refers to the number of days claimed in the Contractor’s letter of .Tan. 18, 1913, 
the extension of time due him on account of delays caused by the Commission, 














46 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


Total erection expense incurred at Miraflores. 


$911, 259 


From this should be deducted, for reasons given below, the following 
amounts for which the Contractor holds the Commission responsible: 


(a) Condition of yards and tracks_ $6,753 

(b) Bolting up with small holes, 37.8 per cent of $153,303- 57, 950 

(c) Reaming out the small holes, one-fourth of $53,070- 13,270 

(d) Water in lock chambers_ 5,000 

(e) Excess riveting, $46,850 plus $58,358 divided by two_ 52, 600 

(/) Excess grinding, three-fourths of one-third of $119,900-_ 29,966 

(< 7 ) Excess cleaning, one-half of $14,856_ 7,428 

(h) Rush work, 17,752 tons at $8 per ton_ .42, 000 

- 314,967 


Total normal expense. 


1 596, 292 


The Contractor therefore claims that he could have erected these 
leaves if the Commission’s actions had not interfered with his work 
for $33.49 per ton. 

The explanation for the amounts given above are as follows: 

(a) Condition of yards and tracks .—In his letter of January 18, 
1913, the Contractor claimed that he had been delayed on account 
of the condition of these yards and tracks by 11 days. Mr. Cole, 
division engineer, and Mr. Goldmark, both admitted the justice of 
a claim for this delay, but were inclined to somewhat reduce the 
number of days. Taking into account our pay rolls at Miraflores 
the Contractor claims that he has been put to an expense of at least 
$6,753 on this account. 

(5) Bolting up with small holes. —The Contractor claims that on 
account of the small holes he was forced to use, the expense of bolt¬ 
ing up on the part of the leaves where 1-inch rivets are used was 
two and one-half times as great as it should have been, and on the 
part of the leaves where seven-eighths-inch rivets are used at least 
one and one-fourth times as great as it should have been. In the 
skin of one 77-foot leaf are used approximately 18,000 1-inch rivets, 
and 45,000 seven-eights-inch rivets—a proportion of 2 to 5. It 
therefore follows that if the expense of bolting up with the larger 
holes would have been 7, this expense was increased by the use 
of small holes to 2 by 24 equals 5, 5 by 1J equals 6.25; total, 11.25. 

The normal expense should therefore have been 62.2 per cent of 
the actual expense the Contractor had to incur, or the Commission 
should pay the Contractor 37.8 per cent of the actual cost of 
$153,303, or $57,950. This would reduce the cost of bolting up from 
$8.64 per ton to about $5.36 per ton. 

( c) Reaming out the small holes. —Based on the same proportion 
of different-sized holes of 2 to 5 given under ( b) the explanation 
for this is as follows: 

The metal we should have reamed out if the specifications had been 
followed for the holes for the 1-inch rivets and seven-eighths-inch 
rivets are as follows: 


Square inch. 


l^-inch holes, area_ 0. 8866 

%-inch holes, area_ . 6013 


Square inch. 


ll-inch holes, area_ 0. 6903 

%-inch holes, area_ . 4418 


.2853 


.2485 


1 Items a, b, c, e, f, and g have been reduced in the proportion of 43.32 to 51.32 to elimi¬ 
nate the effect of the rush work. 




















McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


47 


The metal actually reamed out, however, is: 

Square inch. 

li^-inch holes, area- 0. 8866 tl-inch holes, area_ 

li-inch holes, area- . 3712 U-inch holes, area_ 


Square inch. 

0. 6903 
__ . 3712 


.5154 


.3191 


Therefore the proportion of the excess reaming to the normal 
reaming can be established. 

Normal reaming 2 by 0.2853 equals 0.5706; 5 by 0.2485 equals 
1.2425; 1.8131. 

Actual reaming 2 by 0.5154 equals 1.0308; 5 by 0.3191 equals 
1.5955; 2.6263. 

This shows that the Contractor actually reamed in the field 45 
per cent more than he should have reamed under the specifications, 
or that 31 per cent of the reaming that was done in the field was in 
excess of the specifications. Making allowance for the time con¬ 
sumed in moving the tools from one hole to the other, the Contractor 
therefore claims that the should be compensated for the one-quarter 
of the total cost of this field reaming of $53,070 or $13,270. 

( d) Water in loch chambers .—While this amount is hard to es¬ 
tablish, we claim on account of the number of days established under 
claim No. 3 at a conservative estimate, $5,000 for this obstruction. 

(e) Excess riveting .—In the finished leaves are 5,730,000 rivets 
that have been driven in the field. To do this the Contractor has 
used up at the Isthmus 7,762,000 rivets—an excess of 35.46 per cent. 
Four per cent, or 230,000 rivets, will be allowed for rivets burned or 
lost, and 6 per cent, or 344,000 rivets, conceded for rivets cut out under 
normal inspection. On the basis given above, 10 per cent are con¬ 
ceded as a normal loss, which is the total excess rivets shipped on all 
bridge contracts, of which excess, however, as a rule a liberal por¬ 
tion is returned to the works. 

It is a well-established fact that it costs over one and one-half 
times to two times as much to cut out a rivet than it costs to drive it 
originally, and that the redriving of the cut-out rivets costs about 
the same as the cutting out. 

Based on these assumptions, and on the actual cost of riveting at 
the three sites, the following table has been prepared in which Table 
X represents the cost of the original driving. 

CUTTING OUT AND REDRIVING-3 X. COST OF ORIGINAL DRIVING, X-5.89 CENTS PER 

RIVET. 


Location. 

Net 

number 
of field 
rivets 
re¬ 
quired. 

Cost of riveting. 

Field rivets cut out. 

Actual. 

Normal. 

Excess. 

Total. 

Excess. 

Total. 

Cents 

per 

rivet. 

Total. 

Cents 

per 

rivet. 

Total. 

Per 

cent. 

Number. 

Per 

cent. 

Number. 

Per 

cent. 

Gatun. 

Pedro Miguel.... 
Miraflores. 

Total. 

2,508,000 

1,476,000 

1,746,000 

$313,000 

175,000 

168,150 

12.48 

11.86 

9.63 

$174,300 

102,600 

121,300 

6.95 

6.95 

6.95 

$138,700 
72,400 
46,850 

79.5 

70.5 

38.6 

934.600 

497.600 
369,800 

37.2 
33.8 

21.2 

784,000 

409,000 

265,000 

31.2 
27.8 

15.2 

5,730,000 

656,150 

11.45 

398,200 

6.95 

257,950 

64.8 

1,802,000 

31.4 

1,458,000 

25.4 


CUTTING OUT AND REDRIVING-4 X. COST OF ORIGINAL DRIVING, X-5.07 CENTS PER 

RIVET. 


Gatun. 

2,508,000 
1,476,000 
1,746,000 

$313,000 

175,000 

168,150 

12.48 

11.86 

9.63 

$157,800 
92,800 
109,800 

6.29 

6.29 

6.29 

$155,200 

82,200 

58,350 

98.5 

88.8 

53.1 

915.600 

493.600 
392,800 

36.5 
33.4 

22.6 

765,000 

405,000 

288,000 

30.5 
27.4 

16.6 

Pedro Miguel.... 
Miraflores. 

Total. 

5,730,000 

656,150 

11. 45 

360,400 

6.29 

295,750 

81.9 

1,802,000 

31.4 

1,458,000 

25.4 
















































48 * McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 

From this table will be seen that the actual cost of a finished rivet 
in the leaf is: 


Cents. 

At Miraflores_ 9. 63 

At Pedro Miguel_11- 86 

At Gatun_12. 48 


Average__11- 45 


That there were cut out at Miraflores from 369,800 to 392,800 
rivets, or from 21.2 to 22.6 per cent. 

At Pedro Miguel from 493,600 to 497,600 rivets, or from 33.4 to 
33.8 per cent. 

At Gatun from 915,600 to 934,600 rivets, or from 36.5 to 37.2 per 
cent. 

A total cut out of 1,802,000 rivets, or 31.4 per cent. 

That the excess cut-out over the 6 per cent permissible under 
normal inspection was: at Milaflores, from 15.2 to 16.6 per cent; at 
Pedro Miguel, from 27.4 to 29.2 per cent; at Gatun, from 30.5 to 31.2 
per cent; or an average of 25.4 per cent. 

That the money the Contractor had to spend over and above what 
he should have spent under normal inspection amounted to, $46,850 
to $58,350, or 38.6 to 53.1 per cent at Miraflores; $72,400 to $82,200, 
or 70.5 to 88.8 per cent at Pedro Miguel; $138,700 to $155,200, or 79.5 
to 98.5 per cent at Gatun. 

These percentages are based on the amount that should have been 
spent under normal inspection (100 per cent.) 

The Contractor claims that this riveting could and should have 
been done for from $360,400 to $398,200, while it actually cost him 
$656,150, an excess from $257,950 to $295,750, or 64.8 to 81.9 per 
cent, and that this large extra expense is due to the extreme and 
unreasonable inspection under which the Contractor had to exe¬ 
cute this contract. 

The Contractor draws special attention to the comparative show¬ 
ing of the costs and the number of rivets cut out at the three lock 
sites, which is a clear indication of the degree of unreasou xbleness of 
the inspection at the three sites. 

The Contractor claims that the Commission, on account of the un¬ 
reasonable action of their inspectors at Miraflores in cutting out 
rivets to an extent never heard of before, should reimburse him for 
the average amount established in the table, which is $46,850 plus 
$58,350 divided by 2, or $52,600. 

(/) Excess grinding .—The total cost of machine work at Mira¬ 
flores amounted to $119,900. One-third of this was spent in grind¬ 
ing the end plates and the nickel-steel bearing plates. Three-fourths 
of this grinding was unnecessary, and either contrary to previous 
agreement or contrary to the contract requirements. 

The Contractor, therefore, claims three-fourths of one-third of 
$119,900, or $29,966. 

(g) Excess cleaning .—The Contractor spent at Miraflores $14,856 
for cleaning the interior of the leaves. One-half of this cleaning 
had to be done on account of the paint called for by the Commission 
deteriorating under the climatic conditions on the Isthmus. 

The Contractor therefore claims one-half of $14,856, or $7,428. 







McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


49 


(h) Rush work .—The table on the following page shows the total 
costs and the costs per ton for the erection of the various leaves at 
Miraflores. 

From this table it will be seen that leaves 124 to 127—all of which 
had to be erected in the shortest possible time—cost $59.28 per ton. 
Leaves 120 to 123—two of which had to be erected in a great rush 
(otherwise the conditions being identical)—cost $51.24. Leaves 100 
to 103—all of which had to be erected in a great rush, although not 
quite as much as 124 to 127—cost $57.44. More or less rush work also 
had to be done on leaves 104 to 123 located on one side of the canal. 

It will be seen from the above that rushing two leaves increases 
the cost for the total tonnage of four leaves by about $8 per ton, or 
it is fair to state that if these Miraflores gates had not need to be 
rushed—either all the way across the two chambers or across one 
chamber only—the total cost of all these leaves would have been $8 
per ton below the average, or about $43 per ton. 


Erection costs at Miraflores. 


Contract 

Leaf Nos. 

Location. 

Leaves. 

nH/vfoi 

Erection cost at 
Isthmus. 

No. 

Num¬ 

ber. 

Height. 

i otai. 

Total. 

Per ton. 

4857 

100-103 

Upper guard gates. 

4 

Ft. In. 
47 4 

Tons. 

1,567 

$90,020 

$57.44 

4859 

104-107 

Upper gates. 

Middle gates, upper lock. 

4 

77 0 

2, 752 

133,056 

48.35 

4861 

108-111 

4 

77 0 

2,738 

131,240 

47.93 

4863 

112-119 

Safety gates and lower gates, 
upper lock. 

8 

77 0 

5,462 

270,579 

49.53 

4865 

120-123 

Lower gates, lower lock. 

4 

82 0 

2,954 

151,319 

51.248 

4867 

124-127 

Lower guard gates. 

4 

66 0 

2,279 

135,045 

59.28 






17,752 

911,259 

51.35 


To verify this the Contractor has made an analysis of the money 
spent for the regular day’s work and the overtime at Miraflores, and 
finds as follows: 


Pay for regular hours worked-$603, 515 

Pay for overtime, exclusive of excess rate, 27.9 per cent_ 168, 560 

772, 075 

Excess paid white labor for overtime, 7.45 per cent- 57, 532 

Total_ 829, 607 


From this it will be seen that a claim of $8 per ton for the rush 
work is entirely fair for the reasons: 

First. In order to get the work done the largest possible number 
of men was crowded on these leaves, which, of course, meant lack 
of efficiency and increased the cost. 

Second. These men had to work on an average 28 per cent over¬ 
time over the regular hours they were supposed to work. That 
means that every man all the time averaged 13J hours overtime per 
week. This naturally means lack of efficiency and increased cost. 

Third. At Miraflores the Contractor actually had to spend in ex¬ 
cess rates paid for overtime to the white labor $57,532, which amounts 


29249°—II. Doc. 906, 64-1-4 





























50 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


to $3.25 per ton on the Miraflores tonnage, or to approximately 7£ 
per cent of the normal cost. 

The Contractor therefore claims that on account of this rush work 
he had to incur an extra expense of $8 per ton on approximately 
17,750 tons, or $142,000. 

It has been shown that the normal costs of erection at Miraflores 
should have been $33.49 per ton. 

The Contractor concedes that to get the work started at Gatun 
and Pedro Miguel a certain amount of excess cost should be allowed 
on the first leaves erected at these sites, and he has estimated that a 
liberal allowance on account of this would be 50 per cent on 8 leaves 
at Gatun and 30 per cent on 8 leaves at Pedro Miguel. This would 
make the normal cost, both at Gatun and Pedro Miguel, 10 per cent 
higher than the cost at Miraflores, or $36.84 per ton. 

The Contractor therefore claims that there is due him from the 
Commission the following amounts: 


Gatun, 25,498 tons at $53.83 minus $36.84 equals_ $433, 210 

Pedro Miguel, 14,924 tons at $59.37 minus $36.84 equals_ 336, 238 

Miraflores, 17,752 tons_ 314,967 

Total_'_ 1,084,415 

To this should be added an amount covering transportation, lia¬ 
bility, and general expense, which should be prorated in accord¬ 
ance with the actual total expense and the Contractor’s claim, or 
391,891 XI,084,415-5-3,170,007 equals_ 134,060 


1, 218, 475 

This is the total amount claimed by the Contractor as to the extra 
expense he was put to at the Isthmus on account of actions of the 
Commission. 

7. Extra cost of erection outfit, required to complete the work within time 
demanded, $200,000. 

The total cost of equipment and tools for this work, less the 
salvage, was about $400,000. As closely as we can figure, nearly twice 
as much equipment and more than twice the number of small tools, 
bolts, and washers were used than would have been required had it 
been possible to carry on the erection without resorting to the rush 
work necessary to complete the work on time to suit the Commission’s 
requirements. The cost chargeable to the Commission is one-half of 
$400,000, or $200,000. 

N. B.—An additional claim covering interest charges on account 
Qf deferred payments will be presented in detail as soon as it can be 
compiled. 


Appendix. 

Pittsburgh, Pa., September 5, 191Jf. 

Mr. C. D. Marshall, 

President McClintic-Marshall Construction Co ., 

Pittsburgh , Pa. 

Dear Sir: I beg to report on the changes made in the plans and 
specifications and on the delays we had in the preparation and ap¬ 
proval of the shop drawings for the Panama lock gates, W. O. 23444, 
our contracts 4845 to 4867, inclusive, as follows: " 










McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


51 


I. Changes in Plans and Specifications and Delays Caused by 
the Same in the Preparation of Drawings. 

A.—The work was held up for quite some time on account of a 
proposed change in the construction of the manhole covers. When 
we visited, with Mr. Goldmark, the various ship plants the latter 
part of July, 1910, the officials of the New York Shipbuilding Co. 
pointed out to us that a good deal of weight could be saved in these 
manholes if, instead of making them of cast steel, they would be 
built up of pressed structural steel, as is the regular practice in ship 
work. They further pointed out, showing samples, that in their 
construction the rubber rings that make these manholes water-tight 
were tightly held in place, while in the Commission’s design the 
friction was entirely depended upon to hold these rubber rings. 
There was serious doubt in their minds whether this arrangement 
would meet the requirements. Mr. Goldmark took kindly to their 
suggestions, and it was therefore arranged that we would receive 
from them quotations and plans covering manholes of the type used 
by them in ship work. Under date of September 5 we received from 
the New York Shipbuilding Co. a quotation for this work. 

The designs, however, were not forthcoming until September 27 
and were then (Mr. Goldmark having departed for the Isthmus) 
turned over to Mr. Hammer. These designs were not satisfactory 
to Mr. Hammer. He then secured a man from us to assist him in 
working them up in accordance with his own ideas. We received 
from him, under date of October 17, sketches 201 and 202, and 
under date of October 29 sketches 203 and 207, covering these man¬ 
hole covers, and on November 1 we received a letter from Mr. Ham¬ 
mer requesting us to submit prices based on these sketches. We 
then sent these drawings to the Wheeling Mold & Foundry Co. (our 
subcontractors on this class of work) and received their quotation 
November 5. This quotation was so high that we sent out inquiries 
to other parties and at the same time started to prepare prices our¬ 
selves. A list of these prices was finally submitted to Capt. Boggs 
on November 30. While we received word on December 5 that the 
original covers with some modifications would be used, as late as 
December 19 the matter was still in abeyance, as shown by our letter 
of that date to Mr. Hammer, which reads: 

I. C. C. 576, manhole covers .—This confirms our conversation of this afternoon 
that it will not be safe for us to proceed with the steel frames for manholes on 
the water-tight frames until the modified plans have been received from the 
Isthmus. 

On December 17 we received a letter from Mr. Hammer advising 
us that we could proceed with the fabrication of the water-tight 
frames except that the connections for the manhole covers should 
at the present time be omitted, as a revised drawing was on the way 
which would show slight changes. On December 24 we finally re¬ 
ceived the revised prints of sheet 5065, and on the same date prints 
of sketch 209, showing the manhole cover to take the place of the 
original air vent cover in the girder on top of the air chamber. This 
completed the necessary information. 

We wish to emphasize that the water-tight frames were the most 
complicated parts of the whole construction, naturally requiring a 
Ion o’ time for fabrication. From the above will be seen that we could 
not"even order the web plates for these frames until we received word 


52 


McCLINTIC-MAItSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


from Mr. Hammer under date of December IT. This made a most 
serious delay, and even though we used every effort to hurry this 
work all we possibly could, as a matter of fact, the assembling of 
the first leaf at our Rankin shop was actually held up two to three 
weeks waiting for these frames, as after the bottom girder and the 
heel casting had been laid down, quite some time was spent waiting 
for the water-tight frames of the lower panel, without which the work 
could not proceed further. 

For this delay we put in a claim for an extension of time of 114 
days, based on my letter to you dated December 21, 1910, which 
reads as follows: 

I. C. C. 576—Claims and allowances for extension of time.—Referring to the 
Isthmian Canal lock gates, as explained in detail to you in my report of 
October 31, we have been considerably delayed in the execution of this work. 

With the exception of the manhole covers, we have now all the information 
before us. The information for the manhole covers we expect to get within 
the next week, but so far Mr. Hammer does not think it safe to place this 
order, as you will see from copy of my letter to him under date of December 19. 

The last information received is that for the water-tight frames. Mr. Ham¬ 
mer’s letter of December 17 released the material orders for these frames. 
These frames are about the most complicated work on the gates, and on the 
completion of the same will depend the time when we can start assembling the 
first leaf at our shops. 

The first material orders for the leaves left our office August 25. It is the 
writer’s opinion that we should at least be entitled to an extension of time from 
this date to December 17, which would make the allowance 114 days and would 
make the completion of the last gate September 22, 1913, against June 1, 1913. 
There is, however, a strong probability that we are legally entitled to an exten¬ 
sion of time covering the period from the date of the contract, which is June 21, 
1910, to December 17, 1910. This would make an allowance of 179 days and 
would make the date of completion of the last gate November 26, 1913. 

B.—After the contract was awarded to us it developed that 
changes either would have to be made, or had better be made, both in 
the specifications and plans. The matter was thoroughly gone over 
between Mr. Goldmark and myself, and the modifications embodied 
in an agreement started during the week beginning July 11 and 
finished and finally adopted by Mr. Goldmark in his letter of 
August 8, 1910. 

The changes were of a threefold nature: 

(1) Changes that had to be made because the design or the specifications 
were deficient. 

(2) Changes that were made to improve the design and get the best possible 
results. 

(3) Changes that were made to save us some expense in order to offset ad¬ 
ditional expense we had to incur on account of the changes previously men¬ 
tioned under 1 and 2. 

The following is a resume of these changes: 

FIRST.-CHANGES CAUSED BY DEFICIENCY IN DESIGN AND SPECIFICATIONS. 

1. Page 24, paragraph 121, I. C. C. 576, states: 

In the field erection the separate parts shall be tightly bolted together, using 
bolts in practically all of the holes, and the rivet and bolt holes shall then be 
reamed out to their full size. 

Meaning that all field holes at the shop had to be punched one- 
eighth inch small and reamed out in the field one-sixteenth inch 
larger than the nominal size of the rivet. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


53 


This requirement was impracticable as far as the interior holes in 
the frame were concerned, (a) as it would have made the proper 
assembling and bolting up in the field extremely difficult and tedious 
and (b) as it would have consumed an enormous amount of time in 
the field on account of the large amount of hand reaming with small 
corner reamers in the closed compartments. 

This was modified at our request by paragraph 32 of agreement 
dated August 8, 1910, as follows: 

It has been agreed upon to ream the connections between all diaphragms and 
girders full size in the shop to iron templets. 

This all told necessitated the reaming to the iron templets at the 
shop of 57,304 connections at an expense to us of about $50,000 to 
$60,000, somewhat offset by saving in field labor. This, however, 
caused a great saving of time in the field and insured better work, 
as all the connections were positively known to be correct when they 
left the shop. One of our superintendents stated recently of this 
procedure that if it had not been followed we might be assem¬ 
bling yet. 

If, in case of an accident, the Government ever makes use of the 
spare parts shipped under our contract it will derive a great deal of 
benefit from all these connections being reamed to templet, as this 
will mean a great saving of time in repairs, which, of course, is very 
essential. However, we wish to bring out that for these spare parts 
this reaming meant a great expense to us with no saving in field 
work to offset at least part of this expense. 

May I be permitted to also mention here that, as an offset for 
establishing new contract dates in the supplemental agreement of 
May, 1913, we also agreed to ream all these connections on the 
Balboa gates to templets, and this without extra compensation. This 
work we furnished delivered only, and it will be erected by the 
Government. 

The results obtained, both in the assembling at the shop and in the 
field, fully proved the correctness of our judgment when we requested 
this change to be made. Unfortunately, however, this procedure pro¬ 
posed and carried out for the best of the work caused, on account 
of overexacting and unreasonable limitations imposed upon us by 
the inspectors, lots of delay and a great deal of unnecessary expense 
in the shops. 

2. I. C. C. 576, page 24, paragraph 121, states: 

In attaching the castings the holes in the structural work must be drilled 
from the solid to fit finished holes in castings. 

That this was really intended to be carried out, and carried out 
literally, although even on cursory examination this seemed hardly 
possible to us, is borne out by the notations on the Commission’s 
drawings and also by Mr. Goldmark’s attitude when this modification 
was first proposed and further by the wording of the modification. 

It can be readily seen that it would have been absolutely impossible 
to assemble the end reaction castings to the structural steel frame 
without any holes to hold them in place and properly line tlmn up 
and hold them in alignment. 


54 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


This was modified in agreement of August 8, 1910, by paragraph 
34, which reads: 

With the adjustment provided, it will be permissible to provide holes in the 
shop to connect the end reaction castings to the structural work. These holes 
to be made three-eighths inch smaller than the size of the bolts that go through 
them. 

While this was the only way out of it, it meant more expense to us 
in the shop than if the work had been carried out as originally out¬ 
lined by the Commission. 

3. As Mr. Goldmark entertained apprehension as to the sufficiency 
of the strength of the doubling plates, these were modified as per- 
paragraph 17 of the agreement, which reads as follows: 

In all gates make the big plates in the lower corner at the pintle 2 feet 2 
inches wider, to catch the next intercostal. For the 66-foot, 77-foot, 77-foot 
10-inch, 79-foot, and 82-foot gates increase the doubling plates at the anchorage 
by running them one panel farther down. 

The plates thus getting more than 100 inches wide, had to be 
bought at a higher price than figured. This also added considerable 
to the cost in the field on account of the additional reaming and 
riveting. 

4. After careful study it was decided that the adjustment pro¬ 
vided for the end reaction castings and the nickel-steel bearing 
plates was not sufficient. This was taken care of by paragraph 23 
and paragraph 35 of the agreement, reading as follows: 

It seems desirable to increase the taper of the wedge to three-eighths or 
one-half inch, widening the end reaction castings accordingly and thickening 
the sides of the same so that the outside plates will be parallel with the inside 
of the sheathing of the air chamber. (Par. 23.) 

It has been decided to increase the thickness of babbitt between the nickel- 
steel bearing plates and end reaction castings from one-half to five-eighths 
inch. (Par. 35.) 

This change caused us great additional expense, but was simply 
necessary. 

5. The design of the sheathing was in many ways impracticable, 
if water-tightness of the leaves was to be obtained. After a careful 
study, modifications were therefore decided upon and established in 
paragraph 21 of the agreement, as follows: 

Two bent plates will be used at the end, forming a joint just outside the con¬ 
necting angles of diaphragm “A” on the upstream side of the leaf. These bent 
plates will be made of the same thickness as the thinnest sheathing over the 
air chamber on the downstream side. On the upstream side a filler will be 
used on these bent plates to make up the thickness used for the thinnest sheath¬ 
ing on this side. This filler only to lay on the face of the leaf. The thicker 
sheathing plates will be chamfered for about 4 inches where they join these 
bent plates by one-sixteenth inch and one-eighth inch, respectively. It has been 
decided to make the following changes in the sheathing: 

79-foot gate, sheathing 8-9, downstream, from five-eighths to eleven-sixteenths 
inch. 

79-foot gate, sheathing 8-9, upstream, from thirteen-sixteenths to seven- 
eighths inch. 

54-foot 8-inch gate, sheathing 6-7, upstream, from eleven-sixteenths to three- 
fourths inch. 

47-foot 4-inch gate, sheathing 6-7, upstream, from eleven-sixteenths to three- 
fourths inch. 

In connection with this the upstream cover of girder 7 on the 54-foot 8-inch 
gate will be changed from nine-sixteenths to one-half inch. 

In order to facilitate the calking of the girder on the top of the air chamber 
it has been decided to make the sheathing above and below the girder on the 
top of the air chamber on the downstream side of the same thickness. This 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


55 


will necessitate changing the sheathing above the top of the air chamber in the 
77, 79, and 82 foot gates from five-eighths to eleven-sixteenths inch. 

Above the air chamber on the upstream side a suitable filler will be used 
between the cover plate of the girder on top of the air chamber and the sheath¬ 
ing above, and one filler of suitable thickness will be used between the doubling 
plate above and the sheathing of the air chamber, and the wedge sufficiently 
increased in thickness to make up the balance. On the downstream side the 
sheathing above the top of the air chamber will be lifted by means of filler 
plates between the sheathing and the girders to the plane of the sheathing 
below the top of the air chamber. These fillers will be from one-sixteentk to 
one-fourth inch in thickness. Wherever the sheathing below the top of the 
air chamber changes the thickness, the thinner sheathing will be lifted up by 
means of a one-sixteenth-incli filler to the plane of the heavier sheathing below. 

This was quite a radical change from the original design, simply 
necessary to get the desired results. 

6. The design was at fault at the four corners of the steel frame, 
as it would have been impossible to make the work water-tight the 
way it was designed. This was modified by paragraph 10 of the 
agreement, as follows: 

At the quoin and miter end, arrange the end plates, doubling plates and 
fillers in such a way that they can be calked on the bent plate, leaving a 
small opening in the corner of the castings, which shall be babbitted. 

Where the end plates join, break the splices with the splices of the bent 
plates and fillers. 

The wedges shall be made in two lengths for the 5-foot panels, terminating 
in the quarter points of the panel, and in one length for the shorter panels, 
terminating in the middle of the panel; the lengths to be correspondingly ad¬ 
justed where panels of different lengths adjoin. 

7. I. C. C. 57G, page 24, paragraph 121, states: 

The vertical distances between adjacent horizontal girders must not vary 
more than one-sixteenth inch from the dimensions shown on the plans. 

But no provision was made for the adjustment in the building up 
of the leaves on account of packing out, etc. This had to be modi¬ 
fied, and was modified, by paragraphs 27 and 28 of the agreement 
dated August 8, 1910, reading as follows: 

It has been decided to make all the end reaction castings one-eiglith inch 
short, using a filler at the joints for calking, the fiber to be varied in thick¬ 
ness if necessary to take care of any variation between the height of the gates 
and the castings. (Par. 27.) 

To allow for any variation in packing, the nonwater-tiglit frames and end 
diaphragms “A” and “ B ” will be made one-fourtli inch short in every fourth 
panel and fillers one-eighth, three-sixteenths, and one-fourth inch will be pro¬ 
vided, thus allowing the water-tight frames to determine the heightlis of the 
different panels in the gates. (Par. 28.) 

To provide for the fillers of the outline of the end reaction cast¬ 
ings as called for in paragraph 27 was a very costly procedure, but 
we only received compensation for the same at the regular pound 
price, and besides only for the nominal size required, although con¬ 
siderable spare ones had to be provided to meet all conditions. On 
this same basis w T e were only paid for the othei hlleis foi the nom¬ 
inal sizes required and had to furnish and ship a large number of 

additional fillers at our own expense. 

8. The end reaction castings were fastened to the structural steel 
by means of bolts only. This would have made it impossible to 
keep the leaves tight. This accounts for paragraph 33 of the agree¬ 
ment, which reads as follows: 

It will be necessary to change the lHnch bolts in the wings of end reaction 
castings to lj-inch rivets along the edge of these wings and lj-inch bolts near 

the back. 


56 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


These rivets caused a great deal of trouble and expense to us in 
the field, as shown in Mr. Jewel’s letter of March 16, 1912, which 
reads as follows: 

Or what would answer the purpose would be to make all of the lg-inch 
rivets for the reaction castings taper, as this is a point upon which we are hav¬ 
ing a great number of cut-outs. It is difficult to get these rivets to the inside 
and start driving promptly, and consequently we are losing a large number on 
account of the inside head not being properly upset. 

On account of this we tried hard to get paid for these at the price 
of item 2 covering the bolts originally called for, which is 7.3 cents 
per pound, but were not allowed anything above the price for item 
No. 1, or 3.785 cents per pound. On account of this the Commission 
saved about $5,000 at a large expense to us. 

9. The original design called for seven-eighths-inch rivets through¬ 
out. For the heavy w T ork on the upstream side of the air chamber 
these rivets were too small, and not up to the naval standard. This 
explains paragraph No. 18 of the agreement which reads: 

Wherever the skin is more than eleven-sixteenths inch in thickness on the up¬ 
stream side, use 1-inch rivets with S by 8 inch angles. 

This increased 1,427,000 seven-eighths-inch field rivets to 1 inch 
diameter, causing considerable expense to us in the higher-priced 
material and the increased weight of the rivets and in the greater 
difficulty of driving the same. 

SECOND—CHANGES THAT IMPROVED THE DESIGN. 

10. It was considered very desirable to eliminate as many splices 
as possible, thus reducing the possible amount of leakage. To do this, 
the splices were omitted in all cover plates and the number of splices 
in each upstream sheathing plate was reduced from 2 to 1. This 
change not only secured better construction, but resulted in a saving 
of 835,600 pounds in weight, which at the contract price saved the 
Commission $31,627. This change, however, caused a considerable 
extra expense, as it was necessary to provide, free of charge, a con¬ 
siderable amount of material to box the cover plates together into 
posts, and also caused considerable extra expense in handling in the 
shop and field, together with extra insurance due to the necessity 
of loading these posts on deck rather than in the hold of the vessel.. 
The saving to us in the extra w T ork in caulking, etc., at these splices, 
according to the original design, was more than compensated by the 
loss to us due to the fact that the weight omitted consisted entirely 
of plain punched plates. This change Avas authorized in paragraphs 
Nos. 1 to 3 of the agreement with Mr. Goldmark of August 8, 1910. 

11. As it was considered of great importance to maintain the 
correct distance back to back of flange angles in girders, and as this 
was deemed impossible with the web stiffeners cut short as shoAvn 
on design, it was agreed to increase the length of these stiffeners 
slightly, milling them to fit against the flange angles. This required 
the additional expense of milling 47,776 stiffeners. This change 
Avas authorized in paragraph No. 20 of agreement Avith Mr. Gold- 
mark dated August 8, 1910. 

12. It was decided impracticable to build diaphragm “ B ” so as 
to properly fit betAveen girders on account of its position in the 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


57 


gates, and it was therefore decided to split this diaphragm, resulting 
in the addition of 23,400 holes to be reamed in the field and rivets 
to be driven. This change was authorized in paragraph No. 9 of 
agreement with Mr. Goldmark dated August 8, 1910. 

All these changes were made for the benefit of the work pure and 
simple, and involved a large expenditure to us, as far as we can 
figure, amounting to from $150,000 to $180,000. To offset this 
additional expense some concessions were made, as covered by the 
agreement of August 8, 1910. 

These constitute class 3 of the modifications: 

13. Omit the clipping of the corners of the covers and reinforce 
plates. (Par. 4 of agreement.) 

14. Change the tapered fillers on the girders at the top of the air 
chamber. (Par. 11 of agreement.) 

15. We were allowed to use fillers under the bent stiffeners of 
the girders. (Par. 12 of agreement.) 

16. We w T ere allowed the use of squarehead bolts in certain cases. 
(Par. 22 of agreement.) 

17. The limit of subpunched and reamed work against subdrilled 
and drilled work was raised from under three-fourths-inch material 
to three-fourths-inch material inclusive. (Par. 25 of the agreement.) 

18. A small amount of planing was omitted. (Par. 24 of the 
agreement.) 

19. We were allowed pickling in certain cases against the sand- 

blasing called for throughout originally. (Par. 26 of the agree¬ 
ment.) . 

All these changes, although made with the idea of saving us some 
money to offset th3 large extra expense we had been put to, were 
in no way detrimental to the work and in accordance with the best 
practice. But they not anywhere near made up for our increased 
expense, as with the exceptions of the changes given in paragraphs 
25 and 26 of the agreement, they did not amount to anything in 
dollars and cents. The main saving we expected from change. 

20. Which is touched on in the agreement in paragraph 16 as 
follows: 

Permission is granted of making the end reaction castings one story in height 
only; this is done for the reason that the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. 
expects to demonstrate during the assembling of some of the gates in their yard 
that the work can be done so near correct, that any minor adjustment can be 
made by means of babbitting between the end reaction castings and the nickel 
steel bearing plates and the planing of the end plates done at the shop 
instead of in the field. 

We did demonstrate to Mr. Goldmark and Mr. Hammer, after the 
first leaves were assembled at the shop, that the gates built up so 
straight that with the modification of making the end reaction cast¬ 
ings of only one story height this planning was unnecessary. We 
further proved to Mr. Goldmark that with the sun moving around 
the leaves there was enough movement of the steel at the ends of 
the leaves to make this planing ineffective, which was actually proved 
later on at the Isthmus. Then the planing for which we had allowed 
a large sum of money in our estimate was waived, with the under¬ 
standing that any high spots caused by riveting in the shop or in the 
field would be ground off. Later we proved to Mr. Hammer that 
the rolled steel plates as they came from the mills were every bit as 


58 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


good, if not better, than the shop-planed plates. Then this planing 
was waived, as our mill orders and approved drawings and bills 
show. 

The contract gives on page 4, under “ Table of corrections made 
in specifications printed in circular 576,” the following: 

Page 24, section 121, line 7: “ The end plate shall be planed to a smooth sur¬ 
face.” This refers to the plate 24 inches wide, at the extreme end of structural 
work. The outer surface of this plate is to be finished so that it shall form an 
exact plane for the entire height of the leaf. The original thickness of the 
plate provided must be sufficient to allow this planing without reducing final 
thickness of the plate below three-fourths of an inch. 

As a matter of fact the end plates were ordered : 

For the 47-foot 4-inch and 54-foot 8-inch leaves, thirteen-sixteenths inch thick. 

For the 66-foot leaves, three-fourths inch thick. 

For all the leaves from 77 to 82 feet, inclusive, eleven-sixteenths inch thick. 

The idea being to comply with three-fourths inch as called for in the 
contract in the leaf of medium height, varying the other end plates 
to correspond with the change of thickness in the skin on the down¬ 
stream side, in order to keep the back of the end plates in the same 
position for all leaves. Examination will show the safne thickness 
of material is specified as part of the finished leaves. 

This clearly shows that all the planing of these end plates had 
been waived. 

This is further brought out by a report made by Mr. Frank Price, 
chief inspector, to Mr. Hammer, toward the end of February, 1912, 
which reads in the last paragraph as follows: 

Paragraphs 20 and 21 of the original specifications call for the entire surface 
of the end plates to be planed to a true surface after erection. This was modi¬ 
fied by Mr. Goldmark August 8, 1910, to plane in the shop instead of in the field, 
and modified later to allow the end plates to be fabricated and accepted with¬ 
out planing, provided the work proved to be satisfactory. Taking into consid¬ 
eration the modification of the original contract, the shop should make special 
efforts to get this member satisfactory. 

As to the high spots caused by riveting, we did grind these off in 
the shop and expected to do the same in the field. But as a matter 
of fact under the extreme and unreasonable inspection at the Isthmus 
we were obliged to grind these plates so that when a straight edge 
was laid over these end plates within each story in any direction a 
feeler one sixty-fourth inch in thickness could not be inserted between 
the straightedge and the end plate. 

We claim that at least 75 per cent of this grinding was absolutely 
waste, especially in view of the fact that a heavy canvas water stop 
soaked in red lead and linseed oil was put between these plates and 
the end reaction castings before assembling for the full heights of 
the gates. 

We further claim that a condition was imposed upon us that not 
only wiped out the amount of saving that we had expected to make 
to offset the large additional expense, but made us spend tens of 
thousands of dollars in excess. 

It must be understood that practically no work was done in the 
office until the important points covered by the agreement of August 
8, 1910, were settled, and that at least that much time was consumed 
right in the beginning in the earnest and honest effort to make 
absolutely sure that we were undertaking this unprecedented work 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 59 

by the best possible methods in order to get the best results, and the 
changes made in themselves proved that this time was well spent. 

We are glad and proud to be able to state now, after the success¬ 
ful completion of the work, that every one of our suggestions has 
proved in the execution of the work to have been the correct con¬ 
ception of the work as it had to be done. 

This covers all the main points of the agreement with the excep¬ 
tion of a number of points covering minor details. All told, the 
agreement approved August 8, 1910, covered 36 items. 

C.—During the execution of the contract the necessity of further 
changes developed. These changes are given in the following 
paragraphs: 

1. It was necessary to change the horizontal hinge on the covers 
for the manhole frames to a vertical hinge, as it was found imprac¬ 
ticable to properly open and close them with a horizontal hinge. 
This change was made on all leaves except on the eight 54-foot 8-inch 
leaves first gotten out; as for these, manhole rings and covers had 
been fabricated when this condition was discovered by Mr. Hammer. 
In fact, the covers gotten out for these first leaves drew Mr. Ham¬ 
mer’s attention to this condition. On these first eight leaves the 
manhole covers were therefore used with the horizontal hinge, but 
they were moved from the far side of the frame to the side'toward 
the center of the leaf. 

We received the first intimation of this proposed change in Mr. 
Hammer’s letter of January 31, 1911. The revised design was sub¬ 
mitted to us by Mr. Hammer with his letter of February 11, 1911, 
inquiring whether the modification in this design would affect our 
original price as established bv the contract. This being not the case, 
the design was adopted some short time thereafter for all the balance 
of the leaves. The drawings that enabled us to proceed with this 
work were finally approved March *21, 1911. This change caused a 
most serious and expensive holdup in the field, as we again had to 
stop all work on the water-tight frames until the same was settled, 
and it also stopped for quite some time all work on the manhole 
covers and rings fabricated at Wheeling. 

Meanwhile the balance of the material for the 77-foot leaves was 
gotten out and shipped to the Isthmus, and erection was actually 
held up at the Isthmus on account of our field forces waiting for 
the modified water-tight frames. After these were gotten out at 
the shop it was found absolutely impossible to get from the foundry 
the rings that should have been shipped attached to the same, and 
it was then decided to let the frames go forward without the rings, 
the idea being to ship the rings separate and attach them later in 
the field. This, of course, meant taking down these rings through 
the interior of the leaves and attaching them to the frames in the 
closed compartments. These rings then had to be riveted in these 
closed compartments and caulked for water-tightness. All this work, 
of course, should and could have been done much cheaper and much 
more expeditiously at the shops, and would have been so done if Mr. 
Hammer had not found it necessary to make the change. Our records 
show that all rings for the first sixteen 77-foot leaves, our con¬ 
tracts Nos. 4847 and 4851, and 90 more for leaves of the same size 
on our contract No. 4853, were shipped loose, making a total of 


60 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


570 manhole frames shipped loose, which meant the driving of more 
than 11,000 rivets in the field in the closed compartments, and caulk¬ 
ing for water-tightness of 570 rings in these compartments. This 
amply illustrates the seriousness of this holdup. However, it should 
not be forgotten that a large expense was also incurred by the field 
operations being suspended, our field forces waiting for quite some 
time. 

We put in a claim of 28 days for this delay, although we are now 
satisfied in our own mind that this claim was entirely inadequate. 

This delay coming at a time when we were pushing the work with 
all our might as our field forces were already waiting was very 
serious and expensive indeed. 

2. A long time was consumed in finding the right kind of rubber 
gasket to use on the manholes of the water-tight frames. In the 
early stages of the tests the rubber ring of rectangular section was 
abandoned, as it soon developed that the covers could not be made 
water-tight with the same. For quite some time experiments were 
made with rings reinforced with metal spirals; for these, however, 
the elaborate specifications for rubber, established in I. C. C. 576, 
had to be abandoned, as nobody could be found who would be willing 
to undertake fabrication of these kind of rings under these specifica¬ 
tions. Finally a ring or triangular cross section was decided upon. 

As it was very desirable to ship the covers loose, a special ap¬ 
paratus was devised at Wheeling to test all rings with a standard 
cover and all covers with a standard ring in order to make this 
material interchangeable and at the same time to assure water¬ 
tightness. During these tests it developed that there was a good 
deal of difficulty about holding even the triangular rubber gaskets 
in place, as they blew out under pressure, exactly as had been pointed 
out to us and Mr. Goldmark while the modifications given on page 1 
were discussed with us by the officials of the New York Shipbuild¬ 
ing Co. 

These tests were started at Wheeling toward the end of May, 1911, 
as shown from Wheeling Mold & Foundry Co.’s letter of IVlay 2o’ 
1911. Numerous tests were then made with different kinds and 
different thicknesses of gaskets, until we wrote to Mr. Hammer, 
under date of August 12, 1911, as follows: 

l. C. C. 576—Manhole covers .—Referring to our visit to Wheeling yesterday 
and the investigation and tests we made there on the manhole covers for the 
water-tight frames for the Isthmian Canal lock gates, Washington order 23444 
it is apparent that it will be impossible to have the rubber gaskets stay in these 
covers for any length of time under a 40-pound pressure, unless they be held 
in place by a groove cut in the cover. 

Please have this matter taken up at once, as we can not stand for any further 
delays in settling the construction of these covers, as it is self-apparent now 
that our work will be held up in the field on account of not having these covers 
available. 

This matter was finally disposed of under date of August 21. 1911 
when Mr. Hammer wrote as follows: 

Confirming conversation over the phone in regard to providing grooves for 
rubber gaskets in the manhole covers for the water-tight vertical frames • also 
referring to your letter of the 12th instant regarding the same matter • Reply¬ 
ing to my cable of the 15th instant, I received cablegram of the 18th from the 
Isthmus approving extra grooves in the manhole covers. You are therefore 
authorized to proceed with the manufacture of these manhole covers with 
grooves. 


McCLIN TIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


61 


This delay got so aggravating that, with Mr. Hammer’s approval, 
we made with Wheeling Mold & Foundry Co. a tentative agreement, 
as per our letter of August 18, 1911. 

It should be noted that this change occurred 14 months after the 
award of the contract, and was really in line with the facts presented 
to us and Mr. Goldmark at the very beginning of the work by the 
shipyards. 

3. Under date of September 7, 1910, I wrote to Mr. Hammer as 
follows: 

In this connection I also wish to go on record that I think it is a mistake to 
attempt to build an air-tight chamber in the lower story of the gates. I have 
serious doubt whether it will be feasible to build such a chamber, but even if 
this can be done, it is a great question in my mind how long the same would 
stay air-tight, as, during the operation of the gates and when the gates lean 
against the sills, elastic deformations will take place, which in my opinion, in 
the course of time, will cause leakage in these chambers, in which case the 
whole pumping system would be put out of commission. If the present style 
of the pumping system is adhered to the built-in air chamber in my opinion 
should be done away with and replaced by suitable independent air receivers 
that could be fastened in the lower story of the gates, if necessary, in several 
of the compartments, making suitable connections between these air receivers. 

We were fully convinced that a serious mistake had been made in 
the construction. Not hearing from Mr. Hammer, we wrote him 
again about this matter on September 24, 1910. Under date of 
October 1, 1910, Mr. Hammer wrote us that it had been decided to 
adhere to the original construction, as follows: 

To-day I received letter of September 22 from Mr. Henry Goldmark, design¬ 
ing engineer, Isthmian Canal Commission, transmitting the inclosed blue print 
4ftted September 21, 1910, for drawing No. 5032-A. 

You will kindly note from this drawing that it has been decided to use the 
pumping chamber as shown on our original drawing. The matter of calking 
for making this chamber air and water tight is also indicated on the drawing. 
There may be some slight modification in the valves and piping, none of which, 
however, will affect the structural work, which should proceed without any 
delay. 

Waiting for this decision, we held up all work on the parts affected 
by the same, which are the bottom girder, the girder next to the bot¬ 
tom. and the lowest sheathing panel—all of which was the very first 
part of the work wanted. We then proceeded without delay on 
these drawings and pushed them all we could. After we got them 
all finished and checked, we received Mr. Hammond’s letter of Octo¬ 
ber 24, 1910, in which he states: 

I am in receipt of a letter dated October 13 from Mr. Henry Goldmark, de¬ 
signing engineer, Isthmian Canal Commission, transmitting blue print of draw¬ 
ing No. 5063. It has been decided to omit the pumping chamber as originally 
shown in the bottom panel of leaf, and instead it is proposed to use a centrifugal 
pump for pumping purposes. 

According to Mr. Goldmark, the piping, etc., keeps to the holes and lines 
established in our original plans with a very few exceptions, and he is not 
quite certain that the float control, as indicated in the drawing, will be used, 
but Hie 11-inch pipe should be put in just the same. 

This pumping chamber having been omitted, it will be necessary to replace 
the heavy I beams over the pump chamber in the girder with stiffener angles, 
and one of the water-tight frames at the end of the pumping chamber 
will be replaced with a nonwater-tiglit frame. It will be necessary to have 
holes in the horizontal girders for the shaft between the motor and the pump 
and also holes above the motor in the girders of the water chamber, allowing 
the shaft to be inserted from above. 

Please note that in addition to the gate valves in the inlets a check valve is 
to be placed between the strainers and the other valve in order to enable the 


62 


McCLINTIC-MARSIIALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


system to be made automatic with valves remaining open. We may, however, 
replace the gate valves as indicated with a cock if a suitable cock can be 
obtained. 

Details showing the proposed arrangement may be forwarded you shortly, 
although I believe the drawing No. 5063 will be sufficient for your guidance in 
working out drawings for the structural work. 

As the omission of the pump chamber will relieve your firm from a consider¬ 
able quantity of caulking, it is expected that you will put in additional holes 
required without any extra charge, and I am going to write an agreement to 
this effect. It is understood, of course, that the pump, motor, shaftings, floats, 
etc., will be installed by the Commission and are not to be included in your 
contract. You are, however, to furnish the piping as indicated, the valves, 
and check valves at the pound price stipulated in your bid. As only one print 
has been received of drawing No. 5063, I will propose that you have tracing 
made of it. 

We then had to redraw the drawings affected. This was, to say 
the least, provoking. We answered Mr. Hammer under date of 
October 26, 1910. We call special attention to the lines: “It is ex¬ 
pected that you will put in the additional holes required^ without 
any extra charge,” etc. This is in line with the spirit in which 
every transaction of this contract was carried through. All other 
troubles this change caused us were promptly passed over, and, as 
a matter of fact, we did not even receive any compensation for the 
extra drawing work we were put to on account of this change. For 
this, however, we later on put in a claim for delay of 23 days. 

We feel that w T e have saved the Commission considerable trouble 
and expense by raising this point in the first place, as we are as much 
convinced as ever that if the work had been built as originally de¬ 
signed it would have been only a question of time when changes 
would have had to be made in the finished structure. 

4. The chambers at the quoin and miter ends of the leaves were 
originally, vertically, only connected by means of 10-inch vent holes 
and a corresponding vent cover was used on the girder at the top of 
the air chamber. The only way of access to and egress from these 
chambers was through the manholes in the water-tight frame toward 
the center of the leaves. It was then pointed out to Mr. Hammer 
that with this arrangement during the interior water test at least 
one inspector and two workmen would have to be confined in each 
of these compartments, and that in case of a bad leak or sortie unfor- 
seeil occurrence these men had no possible way of saving them¬ 
selves, the adjoining compartments being filled with water. It was 
then decided to change the 10-inch diameter hole to 11 by 15-inch 
opening and use a manhole cover of corresponding size in the girder 
at the top of the air chamber. This matter was first touched on in 
Mr. Hammer’s letter of November 22, and finally disposed of under 
date of December 24, 1910, when Mr. Hammer approved the drawing 
covering the manhole at the top of the air chamber. 

These large holes, of course, caused considerable extra scrap, which 
was given by us in Article IV of the supplemental agreement dated 
June 15, 1911, for the Government waiving certain requirements in 
the original contract as to fire insurance in Article V. 

Here again it should be noted that we had to give the Commission 
something that actually cost us a good amount of money, for some¬ 
thing that in reality had no bearing whatever on the final result to be 
accomplished; in fact, for something—considering all circumstances 
of the case—that was, to say the least, uncalled for to be specified 
in the first place. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


63 


After this change was made we explained to Mr. Goldmark, and 
also wrote to Mr. Hammer, about it, that as all these chambers were now 
intercommunicating the necessity of having an opening covered with 
a manhole in each w T ater-tight frame had been done away with, and 
that one, or at the utmost two, of such openings—one near the bottom 
and one near the top of the air chamber—would be sufficient. We 
strongly urged upon them a reduction in the number of these covers, 
as we knew they would be troublesome (as later on was actually the 
case). Such reductions would have been the more reasonable as it 
had been found quite a difficult matter to open and close these man¬ 
hole covers, which made it quite self-evident that the men would 
always come out of the same hole by which they had entered. As 
Mr. Goldmark always seemed anxious to keep the weight down, we 
pointed out to him that by reducing the number of manholes con¬ 
siderable weight and expense could be saved (on the basis of two 
remaining manholes the number could have been cut down from 
2,544 to 552, or a saving of 1,992 manholes, estimated at 422,000 
pounds in weight and at $92,000 in cost), but unfortunately no action 
was ever taken in this matter. 

5. No provision had been made in the design for the use of water 
stops. In fact, Mr. Goldmark vigorously opposed their use in the 
beginning. 

I. C. C. 576, page 11, paragraph 23, states in connection with the 
crimping of the water-tight frames: 

This crimping must be smithed in such a manner as to obtain a close fit of 
both sides of the bounding angle to the adjoining structural parts and insure 
good contact for calking. In no case will the use of steel shavings be permitted 
for filling openings where the crimping is poorly done. 

After careful investigation of the shipyard practice, and on strong 
representation of Mr. Guynn, water stops have been extensively used, 
and also steel shavings, or we should rather say wedges (“ Dutch¬ 
men,” in the shipbuilder’s language), to make the work water-tight. 
The water stops cost us for the plain material alone $7,560, and we 
estimate that after being properly soaked in linseed oil and red lead 
they have cost us in place in the neighborhood of $22,000. We have 
tried to collect for this, but were only allowed payment in accord¬ 
ance with I. C. C. 576, paragraph 5, page 7, reading as follows: 

Rubber gaskets and all packings in items 4 and 10 will be paid for at the same 
rate per pound as the metallic parts in the items in question. 

It should be noted that this paragraph only refers to item 4, man¬ 
holes and manshaft covers, and item 10, the pumping system, so 
that its application to item 1 seems hardly consistent. However, 
at this rate we collected for the water stops 5,872 pounds, at the rate 
of 3.785 cents per pound, or about $232.25. The weight of the water 
stops on which we were allowed payment covers the water stops 
as shown on the drawings. As a matter of fact, a great deal of addi¬ 
tional material had to be shipped to the Isthmus, the plain material 
for the water stops used amounting altogether to 22,940 pounds, but 
we have not been able to collect for this additional weight, even at 
the low pound price. 

This always seemed a plain injustice to us. Items 4 and 10 were 
fully detailed showing all the packing required, which gave the Con- 
. tractor ample chance to take care of this packing at the proper cost 


64 McCLIN TIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 

in his pound price of the whole item. In item No. 1 water stops 
were not only not called for, but their use was strongly opposed in 
the beginning by Mr. Goldmark; yet at the same time when it comes 
to paying for these necessary adjuncts to the work the pound price 
for item No. 1 had to be applied the same as the pound price for items 
4 and 10 were applied for the packing required for these items, with 
the difference, however, that in the latter case such was distinctly 
specified and the material required shown on the drawings. 

6. In the corners, at the miter and quoin end of the leaves, very 
inadequate provision had been made on the Commission’s drawings 
on the girder on top of the air chamber to make this joint water¬ 
tight. This matter was pointed out first by Mr. Guynn, and we all 
saw, after his representation, that it would be practically impossible 
to make this point water-tight the way it had been designed. As 
this was very important (as leakage from the water chamber above 
into the air chamber below at this point would have been a very 
serious matter) thorough study was given this detail, and as it was 
rather troublesome to find a good solution various schemes were 
under consideration, like the use of steel castings, etc. Mr. Guynn 
finally suggested to use a forged angle with planed ends at this 
point, butting against planed ends of the chord angle of the girder. 
This was finally adopted, and apparently has given excellent results. 
However, it w r as a very troublesome and expensive detail to make 
and put us to a large expense. 

7. After consultation with the various water-tight experts, in a 
visit made by Mr. Hammer and ourselves to the shipyards in the 
East, it was decided to countersink all rivets in water-tight work. 
(See agreement with Mr. Hammer, Oct. 6, 1910.) This matter was 
referred by Mr. Hammer to Mr. Goldmark, who took issue with Mr. 
Hammer in regard to this change. This agreement was therefore 
modified so that only rivets inaccessible for calking, such as in 
water-tight frames, flange angles of girders, etc., should be counter¬ 
sunk. This change in the plans and specifications required the 
countersinking in the shop of 440,000 holes and in the field of 308,000 
holes, involving considerable extra expense to us. This change, 
however, saved the Commission $6,375, as, according to the original 
designs, they would have been required to pay for 748,000 rivet heads 
which were omitted by this change. The engineer in charge of 
erection objected to the extra expense of countersinking these holes in 
the field, so ordered full head rivets for the first gate. The result 
of this change was brought out very clearly in letter of Mr. L. L. 
Jewel, of July 11, 1912. On account of the attitude of the field 
inspectors it was, therefore, decided to use countersunk rivets at all 
of these points, as had already been agreed upon with Mr. Gold- 
mark and Mr. Hammer. 

8. The designs for the water-tight frames showed the bounding 
angles made in four pieces with plain butt joints. After consulting 
with water-tight experts and considerable experimenting, it was de¬ 
cided to weld these joints, making these angles in one continuous 
piece. (See Mr. Hammer’s letter of Jan. 6, 1911, in regard to this.) 
This change resulted in a large extra expense to us because of weld¬ 
ing four joints in each of these 2,544 staple angles, and also on 
account of the great care necessary in making these continuous 
angles to the exact dimensions desired. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 65 

H. —The progress of the work was further interfered with as 
follows: 

I. Long delays occurred in connection with the pumping chamber 
and pumping system. The occurrences in connection with the 
pumping chamber are given in detail under “ C,” paragraph 3. The 
rest of the information of the pumping system was settled in Mr. 
Hammer's letter of October 31, 1910. 

This letter made some quite important changes. Later on some 
more difficulties arose, which, however, did not affect the structural 
steel. (See letter of Mr. Hammer to us of Sept. 11. 1911, and Crane 
Co.’s letter to us of Sept. 15, 1911.) 

2. For a long time the necessary information as to the mitering 
mechanism was not obtainable. We draw attention to Mr. Ham¬ 
mer’s letter of September 29, 1910, and our answer of September 
30, 1910. Our records show that this information was forthcoming 
in the next three or four weeks. March 29, 1911, Mr. Hammer 
instructed us as to further changes in connection with the mitering 
mechanism. It will be noted that this was nine months after the 
award of the contract. 

3. Quite a serious change was made by Mr. Hammer in the skin 
of the 77-foot leaves after the shop drawings had been practically 
finished and checked. As Mr. Hammer did not heed our request to 
put the instructions for this change in writing, I went on record 
about it under date of January 10, 1911, as follows: 

7. C. C. 576—Engineering and drafting .—You informed the writer verbally 
yesterday that the skin on the 77-foot gates was not gotten out in accordance 
with your wishes, but contrary to verbal instructions issued by you to our 
Mr. Frosell in charge of this work about three months ago and would have 
to be rearranged. The writer asked you then yesterday to kindly confirm 
in writing that you wished this sheathing changed, and was informed by you 
that you were not ready to do this at this time but would do so when in the 
regular course of business you could take up this work for checking. As we 
have not time to wait for this, we write this letter confirming your instructions 
to make the change and at the same time advise you that we will do so, as we 
must get this work in the shop and can not wait to have this matter referred 
to the Isthmus. 

It is very unfortunate that the verbal instructions given to the squad master 
in charge of this work were at the time being not confirmed in writing, as 
in this case both our chief draftsman and the writer would have been cognizant 
of the instructions issued and would have certainly seen that they were car¬ 
ried out to the letter. This is particularly unfortunate, as these instructions 
were of such far-reaching nature. Now, the squad master claims that he did 
not understand what you wished him to do, which is quite apparent, as there 
could have been no earthly reason why he should not have lived up to your 
instructions if he had properly understood. 

The schedule showing the arrangement of the splices in these gates was sub¬ 
mitted to you under the date of October 1, and the original detail drawings 
were submitted to you between the dates of October 8 and November 17. 
While it was true that new drawings for these details have been submitted to 
vou off and on, incorporating changes that had been made by you on the other 
.rates it nevertheless remains a fact that even a cuisoiy examination of the 
original details would have shown at once that they were not gotten out in 
accordance with the instructions which you meant to issue. We will now have 
to re-mark all the skin work and redetail quite a number of the sheets. We 
win also have to put some of the material in stock and some of the sheathing 
received for these particular gates will have to be applied to other gates and 

new material ordered from the mills. . , . . 

This is rather a serious condition to get in, when the shop is ready to take 
un the work While as you say, it will not delay getting these particular 
drawings to the shop, as you would not be able to take up approval of same 

29249°—H. Doc. 906, 64-1 


■o 



66 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


before tbe time that they can be redrawn, at the time it will delay all the 
other drawings for just the amount of time it will take to make this change. 

The writer is extremely sorry that this matter has occurred, particularly 
so as, as far as he can see, the changes are only necessary to avoid the order¬ 
ing of a few spare parts at the top of the gates, the tonnge of which will 
probably be fully offset by other spare parts that will have to be ordered after 
the changes are made for the lower parts of the gate. 

This letter is self-explanatory, but it should be noted that this 
occurred just at the time when the shop was fairly begging for the 
drawings of those 77-foot leaves and at a time when everybody from 
Mr. McClintic down was after Mr. Hammer to get these drawings 
approved. 

4. The rivet gauges in flange angles was agreed upon with Mr. Gold- 
mark and the drawings started on the basis of this agreement. Later 
on, after a great number of drawings had been made, it was decided 
by Mr. Hammer that it was necessary to change these gauges. This 
change required revision on some 50 to 75 drawings, as it changed 
girders, sheathing plates, cover plates, water-tight frames, nonwater- 
tight frames, bent plates, end plates, etc., causing serious delay and 
considerable expense in our drawing-room. 

II. Delay in the Approval of Drawings. 

The shop drawings, being the foundation for all further oper¬ 
ations, were given a great deal of thought and study. Before the 
drafting work was started, as basis of the requirements of the shop 
and field to meet the contract dates, a careful schedule was prepared 
showing when the drawings should be submitted for approval, and 
when they should be actually approved, making the customary 
allowance for time required for approval of drawings. 

It took 266 bills, 300 shop drawings, and 1,141 tables of quantities 
and weights to cover this work. In all our experience we have never 
seen a contract where the drawings have been taken up in a more 
systematic way. Elaborate data sheets—52 in number—were pre¬ 
pared to cover all points before the drawings were actually started, 
and a large force of especially picked engineers and draftsmen were 
employed to handle this work as best we knew how. 

Table 1, attached, shows that while for the early leaves the sched¬ 
ule (as far as submitting drawings for approval is concerned) was 
not adhered to, for the later leaves (on account of the increased 
force we put on this work) the drawings were very nearly gotten 
out on time. The delay for the early leaves can easily be explained 
by all the difficulties we had to contend with that I have gone into 
detail in the forepart of this report. 

When it came to the approval of the drawings, however, the mat¬ 
ter is just reversed. While the early leaves are not much farther 
behind than we were behind in submitting the drawings for ap¬ 
proval, for the later leaves the delay is enormous. 

Examination of table 2, attached, shows a very prompt approval 
for the drawings for the 54-foot 8-inch leaves. A little more delay 
occurred for the first sixteen 77-foot leaves covered by our contracts 
4847 and 4851, while the remaining twenty-four 77-foot leaves cov¬ 
ered by our contracts 4859 and 4861 and 4863 submitted between 
October 1, 1910, and January 31, 1911, were not approved until 
January 18, 1912. 

The 79-foot leaves, our contract 4859, were approved fairly 
promptly, except a few sheets that hung back. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


67 


On the 77-foot 10-inch leaves, however, our contract 4855, the 
drawings which we submitted between October 1, 1910, and March 6, 
1911, were not finally approved until June 9 to September 16, 1911. 

On the 47-foot 4-inch leaves, final drawings for which we sub¬ 
mitted April 26, 1911, they were not approved until September 18 
to November 13, 1911. 

While we realize that some of this delay was caused by Mr. Ham¬ 
mer having to go over all these drawings and tables personally, both 
in checking and approving, and can find this as a valid excuse 
as far as Mr. Hammer is concerned, we certainly blame the Commis¬ 
sion for this delay, as the organization should have been such that 
the work could have been handled more promptly. 

Mr. Hammer has given us two reasons for holding off on the ap¬ 
proval of certain leaves, one being that he wished to hear from the 
Isthmus how early leaves came out before he approved any more 
drawings, and the second one that he did not care to approve any 
more drawings, as the shop did not have any use for them. 

These were the reasons why the approval of the last twenty-four 
77-foot leaves were delayed for over seven months after the first 
16 leaves had been approved, and for the second reason alone the 
82-foot leaves, contract 4865, which were submitted between October 
1, 1910, and April 28, 1911, were only approved between March 6 
and 18, 1912; and the 66-foot leaves, contract 4867, submitted the 
same time, approved between April 2 and May 10, 1912, and this 
only after Mr. McClintic had written to Mr. Goldmark, under date 
of January 25, 1912, as follows: 

We intend to exert every effort to finish up the lock gates on time, and to 
this end we are anxious to complete the shopwork for the gates at the earliest 
possible moment. In order to do this we would like to have the detail draw¬ 
ings for the 82-foot leaves, our contract 4865, and for the spare parts, our 
contract 4873, checked and turned over to us not later than March 1, 1912, and 
the details for the 66-foot leaves, our contract 4867, checked up and turned 
over to us not later than April 1. 

We trust that you will see your way clear to do this without serious incon¬ 
venience to yourself. 

When Mr. Goldmark received this letter he cabled instructions to 
Mr. Hammer to get this matter going. 

Mr. Goldmark stated to me on the Isthmus the beginning of 1913, 
when this matter was discussed, that he had never been aware of Mr. 
Hammer holding off on approval of this work as he had done. 

In our claim for extension of time we put in 40 days 7 delay for 
the 82 and 66-foot leaves. This figure is entirely too conservative, 
however; in fact, we see no reason why, in accordance with estab¬ 
lished custom and practice, we could not claim a delay of pretty 
nearly one year on the 82 and 66-foot leaves. 

Numerous letters are on file to show our earnest efforts to get the 
drawings approved and in the shop. But these only tell half the 
story, as both Mr. Pendergrass and myself kept after Mr. Hammer 
in this matter all the time, as we naturally were anxious to have this 
work cleaned up in the drawing room and get the men working on 
the lock gates available for other work, also to get all these matters 
finally disposed of while they were fresh and clear in everybody’s 
mind. 

Sometimes we felt that Mr. Hammer very much resented our 
pushing him so hard about the approval of these drawings; in fact, 
we feel that the occurrence described under “ D,” paragraph 3, was 


68 McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 

purely a matter of Mr. Hammer penalizing us for pushing him too 
hard to get the drawings of the 77-foot leaves approved. This is the 
reason we asked him to put this matter in writing, and why, when 
he refused to do this, I wrote him under date of January 10, 1911, 
this rather unusual letter. 

The hanging on of this work naturally increased our office expense 
a great deal, and, more serious than that, delayed shipments resulted. 
Respectfully submitted. 

Paul L. Wolfel, 

Chief Engineer. 


Table No. 1. —Comparison of approval of drawings as scheduled and as it actu¬ 
ally occurred. 




Drawings for approval. 

Drawings approved. 

Days 

behind 

Con¬ 

tract. 

Height. 

Scheduled. 

Actual. 

Scheduled. 

Actual. 

schedule 

for 

approved 

drawings. 

4845 

Ft. in. 
54 8 

Sept. 3,1910 

Oct. 1, 1910, to Jan. 

Sept. 17,1910 

Oct. 29.1910, to Jan. 

42-126 

4847 

77 0 

Oct. 13,1910 

11, 1911. 

Oct. 1, 1910, to Jan. 

Oct. 27,1910 

21,1911. 

Oct. 29,1910, to June 

2-255 

4849 

79 0 

Dec. 4,1910 

31,1911. 

Oct. 1, 1910, to Feb. 

Dec. 18,1910 

9, 1911. 

Oct. 29,1910, to June 

235 

4851 

77 0 

Oct. 13,1910 

25, 1911. 

Oct. 1, 1910, to Jan. 

Oct. 27,1910 

10, 1911. 

Oct. 29,1910, to June 

256 

4853 

79 0 

Dec. 4,1910 

31, 1911. 

Oct. 1, 1910, to Feb. 

Dec. 18,1910 

10, 1911. 

.do. 

235 

4855 

77 10 

Mar. 15,1911 

25,1911. 

Oct. 1, 1910, to Mar. 

Apr. 1,1911 

June 9,1911, to Sept. 

168 

4857 

47 4 

Apr. 1,1911 

6, 1911. 

Oct. 1, 1910, to Apr. 

Apr. 15,1911 

16, 1911. 

Sept. 18, 1911, to 

156-212 

4857J 

4859 

47 4 

Apr. 8,1911 
Oct.l3,1910to 

28, 1911. 

.do. 

Apr. 22,1911 
Oct. 27,1910 

Nov. 13, 1911. 

.do. 

149-205 

77 0 

Oct. 1, 1910, to Jan. 

Jan. 18, 1912. 

459 

4861 

77 0 

.Tan. 31,1911 
Oct. 13,1910 

31, 1911. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

459 

4863 

77 0 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

459 

4865 

82 0 

Apr. 15.1911 

Oct. 1, 1910, to Apr. 

May 1,1911 

Mar. 6, 1912, to Mar. 

310-322 

4867 

66 0 

Apr. 22,1911 

28, 1911. 

.do. 

May 7,1911 

18, 1912. 

.do. 

304-316 




Table No. 2. —Record of approval of drawings 


Con¬ 

tract. 

Height. 

Prints for approval. 

Returned for cor¬ 
rection. 

Tracing for approval. 

Tracings approved. 


Ft. in. 





4845 

54 8 

Oct. 1, 1910, to Jan. 

Oct. 27,1910, to Jan. 

Oct. 28,1910, to Jan. 

Oct. 29,1910, to Jan 



11,1911. 

21,1911. 

21,1911. 

21,1911. 

4847 

77 0 

Oct. 1, 1910, to Jan. 

Oct. 27,1910. to Feb. 

Oct. 28,1910, to Apr. 

Oct. 29, 1910, to 



31,1911. 

27,1911. 

8,1911. 

June 9, 1911. 

4849 

79 0 

Oct. 1, 1910, to Feb. 

None returned. 

Oct. 28,1910, to June 

Oct. 29, 1910, to 



25,1911. 


10,1911. 

June 10,1911. 

4851 

77 0 

Oct. 1, 1910, to Jan. 

Oct. 27,1910, to Feb. 

Oct. 28,1910, to Apr. 

Oct. 29, 1910, to 



31,1911. 

27,1911. 

8,1911. 

June 9,1911. 

4853 

79 0 

Oct. 1, 1910, to Feb. 

None returned. 

Oct. 28,1910, to June 

Oct. 29, 1910, to 



25,1911. 


10,1911. 

June 10,1911. 

4855 

77 10 

Oct. 1, 1910, to Mar. 

.do. 

June 9,1911, to Sept. 

June 9, 1911, to 



6,1911. 


11,1911. 

Sept. 16,1911. 

4857 

47 4 

Oct. 1, 1910, to Apr. 

.do. 

Sept. 18,1911, to Oct. 

Sept. 18, 1911, to 



28,1911. 


21,1911. 

Nov. 13, 1911. 

4857 ] 

47 4 

.do. 

.do. 


Do. 

i 4859“ 

77 0 

Oct. 1, 1910, to Jan. 

.do. 


Jan. 18,1912. 


31,1911. 



1 4861 

77 0 

.do. 

.do. 


Do. 

i 4863 

77 0 

.do. 

.do. 


Do 

4865 

82 0 

Oct. 1, 1910, to Apr. 

.do. 

Mar. 6, 1912, to Mar. 

Mar. 6, 1912, to 



28,1911. 


13,1912. 

Mar. 18,1912. 

4867 

66 0 

.do. 

.do. 

Apr. 2, 1912, to May 

Anr 2 1912 to 





10,1912. 

May 10,1912. 


1 Entire contract approved by letter. 

































































McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


69 


Modifications Decided on by Mr. Henry Goldmark on the Design 

for Lock Gates for Isthmian Canal Commission Contracts 

Nos. 4849 to 4865, Inclusive, W. O. 23444, August 8, 1910. 

First. The 13J-inch cover plates on the downstream side of leaves 
will be made in one length and shipped bolted on to the girders. In 
order to protect the planed edge of these cover plates during ship¬ 
ment, they will be reduced in width to 12§ inches, so that the edge is 
inside the flange angles. 

Second. The sheathing plates on the downstream side will be made 
in two lengths instead of three, as shown, the splices to be in the 
panel next to the center, alternating from one side of the center to 
the other in successive panels. 

Third. On the upstream side the cover plates will be shipped in 
one length. The 13-inch covers above the air chamber to be bolted 
to the girders. The covers on the wide doubling plates at the bottom 
of the leaves for shipment will be bolted to the web of the girders 
at the top of the air chamber on the side where no stiffeners occur, 
and the long wide covers on the air chamber will for shipment be 
bolted together by means of timbers, and some of the 13-inch covers 
in shape of posts, carefully protecting the planed edges by means of 
timber packing pieces. 

The omission of splices in the cover plates will make it possible to 
omit the short cover splices used in the upper part of the upstream 
side and will reduce the length of the short cover plates on the lower 
side of this face, so that they will project one line of rivets beyond 
the splice plate nearest to the miter and quoin end. 

Fourth. It will be permissible to omit the clipping of the corners 
of the cover plates and of the reinforcing plates on webs around man¬ 
holes, etc. 

Fifth. The rivet spacing in splice plates and intercostals on the 
downstream side in panels 8 to 9 should be made the same as in 
downstream side panels 2 to 3, with a pitch of about 4| inches. 

Sixth. The rivet spacing in web splices and intercostals above the 
air chamber on the upstream side can be modified as per sketch 
No. 25 attached. 

Seventh. The connection for the end diaphragm “A” is to be pro¬ 
portioned in accordance with strains given in Mr. Goldmark’s memo¬ 
randum book No. 22, pages 3 to 12, inclusive, using 9,000 pounds per 
square inch as permissible shear, which shear can be increased to 
10,000 pounds per square inch in the lower panels, if necessary. 
Also check webs in these diaphragms for 10,000 pounds shear per 
square inch gross. 

Eighth. In the girders, run the chord angles through, so that they 
can be faced with end of girder, and make the doubling plate of the 
same thickness as the angles on the downstream side. 

In the girder at the top of the air chamber, keep the doubling plate 
far enough away from the chord angles to allow for calking. 

Ninth. The end diaphragm " B ” shall be split in the center line of 
diaphragm “ A,” using a proper splice and field riveting the chord 
angles to one-half of the diaphragm. 

Tenth. At the quoin and miter end, arrange the end plates, 
doubling plates, and fillers in such a way that they can be calked 
on the bent plate, leaving a small opening in the corner of the cast¬ 
ings, which shall be babbitted. 


70 


McCLTNTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


Where the end plates join, break the splices with the splices of 
the bent plates and fillers. 

The wedges shall be made in two lengths for the 5 foot panels, 
terminating in the quarter points of the panel, and in one length for 
the shorter panels, terminating in the middle of the panel; the 
lengths to be correspondingly adjusted where panels of different 
lengths adjoin. 

Eleventh. On the girder at the top of the air chamber, omit the 
tapered fillers and use one filler of seven-sixteenths inch between 
the chord angles and one filler of five-sixteenths inch running over 
the 6-inch chord angles. 

Twelfth. It will be permissible to use fillers under the bent stiff¬ 
eners in the girders of the thickness of the angles on the upstream 
side. 

Thirteenth. Referring to the intercostals on the downstream side, 
extend the 8-inch channels one panel higher and in the three panels 
above change the 5-inch Z bar to 6 by 3J by f inch, nine-sixteenths 
inch, and seven-sixteenths inch angles, respectively. On the up¬ 
stream side, change the 5-inch Z bars to 6 by 3J by seven-sixteenths 
inch angles throughout. 

Cut all the channels and angles short at 6-inch flange angles of 
girders, but cope them 2 inches over the 8-inch-flange angles, using 
one-half-inch connection plates and four seven-eighths-inch rivets 
for the channels, and seven-sixteenths-inch plates and three seven- 
eighths-inch rivets for the angles. 

Fourteenth. Where the I-beam stiffeners on the bottom girders 
and on the girders on top of the air chamber have to be bent to 
connect them to the stiffeners, a built-up member of I or channel 
section can be substituted. 

Fifteenth. It is feared that the painting of surfaces in contact 
where water-tight work is required may cause leakage on account of 
the paint being burned off by the rivets. This matter will be further 
investigated with the view of either omitting the painting altogether 
or substituting a coat of oil or oil with a light pigment in its place. 

Sixteenth. Permission is granted of making the end reaction cast¬ 
ings one story in height only. This is done for the reason that the 
McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. expects to demonstrate during 
the assembling of some of the gates in their yard that the work can 
be done so near correct that any minor adjustment can be made b}^ 
means of babbitting between the end reaction castings and the nickel 
steel bearing plates and the planing of the end plates done at the 
shop instead of in the field. 

Seventeenth. In all g'ates make the big plates in the lower corner 
at the pintle 2 feet 2 inches wider to catch the next intercostal. 

For the 66-foot, 77-foot, 77-foot 10-inch, 79-foot, and 82-foot gates 
increase the doubling plates at the anchorage by running them one 
panel farther down. 

Eighteenth. Wherever the skin is more than eleven-sixteenth inch 
in thickness on the upstream side, use 1-inch rivets with 8 by 8-inch 
angles. 

Nineteenth. The webs of the diaphragms “A” can be made of one 
thickness. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


71 


Twentieth. In order to maintain a uniform width of girders out 
to out, it has been decided to mill the stiffeners and bring them to 
a bearing against flange angles. 

Twenty-first. Two bent plates will be used at the end, forming a 
joint just outside the connecting angles of diaphragm “A” on the up¬ 
stream side of the leaf. These bent plates will be made of the same 
thickness as the thinnest sheathing over the air chamber on the down¬ 
stream side. On the upstream side a filler will be used on these bent 
plates to make up the thickness used for the thinnest sheathing on 
this side, this filler only to lay on the face of the leaf. The thicker 
sheathing plates will be chamfered for about 4 inches where they 
join these bent plates by one-sixteenth and one-eighth inch, respec¬ 
tively. It has been decided to make the following changes in the 
sheathing: 

79-foot gate, sheathing 8-9, downstream, from five-eighths to 
eleven-sixteenths inch. 

79-foot gate, sheathing 8-9, upstream, from thirteen-sixteenths to 
seven-eighths inch. 

54-foot 8-inch gate, sheathing 6-7, upstream, from eleven-six¬ 
teenths to three-fourths inch. 

47-foot 4-inch gate, sheathing 6-7, upstream, from eleven-six¬ 
teenths to three-fourths inch. 

In connection with this the upstream cover of girder 7, on the 
54-foot 8-inch gate will be changed from nine-sixteenths to one-half 
inch. 

In order to facilitate the calking of the girder on top of the air 
chamber, it has been decided to make the sheathing above and below 
the girder on the top of the air chamber on the downstream side of 
the same thickness. This will necessitate changing the sheathing 
above the top of the air chamber in the 77, 79, and 82 foot gates 
from five-eighths to eleven-sixteenths inch. 

Above the air chamber on the upstream side a suitable filler will 
be used between the cover plate of the girder on top of the air cham¬ 
ber and the sheathing above, and one filler of suitable thickness will 
be used between the doubling plate above and the sheathing of the 
air chamber and the Tvedge sufficiently increased in thickness to make 
up the balance. On the downstream side the sheathing above the top 
of the air chamber will be lifted up by means of filler plates between 
the sheathing and the girders to the plane of the sheathing below the 
top of the air chamber. These fillers will be from one-sixteenth to 
one-fourth inch in thickness. Wherever the sheathing below the top 
of the air chamber changes the thickness, the thinner sheathing will 
be lifted up by means of a one-sixteenth inch filler to the plane of the 
heavier sheathing below. 

Twenty-second. It will be satisfactory to make the bolts connect¬ 
ing the end connection castings to the leaves squarehead bolts, as 
long as these heads are on the inside of the leaf. If, on account of 
the impossibility of inserting these bolts from the inside, the bolthead 
is to be used on the outside, hexagon heads will have to be used. 

Twenty-third. It seems desirable to increase the taper of the wedge 
to three-eighths or one-half inch, widening the end connection castings 
accordingly and thickening the sides of the same so that the outside 


72 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


plates will be parallel with the inside of the sheathing of the air 
chamber. 

Twenty-fourth.—Referring to the planing of the sheared edges, it 
will be satisfactory to saw the channel intercostals. The angle inter- 
costals up to one-half inch inclusive need not be planed. The con¬ 
nection plates for the intercostals will be ordered UM plates and 
only the ends indicated planed, the other edges to be neatly sheared. 



Referring to the nonwater-tight diaphragm, the clipped corners 
of the web plates need not be planed; the same applies to the ends 
of the connection angles. 

Referring to the water-tight diaphragms, the short connection 
angles which are on the noncaulked side will not have to be planed. 

Tw T enty-fifth.—Permission has been granted that in the girders 
and diaphragms “A,” also in skin on the down-stream side, metal up 
to and including three-fourth inch can be subpunched instead of 
drilled from the solid. This is with the understanding that good work 
must be obtained and the holes thorough^ cleaned up in reaming. 

Twenty-sixth.—Instead of sand blasting, it will be satisfactory to 
remove the scale by means of pickling on the skin plates, loose cover 
plates, splice plates, and similar material. Riveted girders should 
be cleaned by means of sand blasting. 

Twenty-seventh.—It has been decided to make all the end reaction 
castings one-eighth inch short, using a filler at the joints for caulk¬ 
ing. This filler to be varied in thickness if necessary to take care of 
any variation between the height of the gates and the castings. 

Twenty-eighth. To allow for any variation in packing, the non¬ 
water-tight frames and end diaphragms “A” and “ B ” will be made 
one-fourth-inch short in every fourth panel and fillers one-eighth, 
three-sixteenths, and one-fourth inch will be provided, thus allowing 
the water-tight frames to determine the heights of the different 
girders in the gates. 

Twenty-ninth. Where the bent plates come together at the end of 
the gates, one-fourth-inch clearance will be allowed. The skin plates 
at the end will make a tight joint with the end bent plates. Where 
there are two vertical joints in the skin plate in the length of the gate, 
one-eighth-inch opening will be allowed at each joint, but where 
there is only one vertical joint, one-fourth inch will be allowed. 
There will be one-fourth-inch clearance allowed at the horizontal 
joints of the skin plates. The web plates of girder may set back from 
flange angles one-eighth inch, one-eighth-inch clearance will be 
allowed between ends of web plates at splices in girders. On up¬ 
stream side above air chamber, the vertical splice plates for skin shall 
be made one-fourth inch short to allow clearance where they butt 
against the cover. 

Thirtieth. Plates over three-eighths inch in thickness need not 
have beveled edges for caulking. 

Thirty-first. The girders with 19J-inch covers and 6 by 6-inch 
angles will be changed to girders with 16J-inch covers and 8 by 8 
inch angles. 



McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


73 


Thirty-second. It has been agreed, upon to ream the connections 
between all diaphragms and girders full size in the shop to iron 
templet. 

Thirty-third. It will be necessary to change the lj-inch bolts in 
the wings of end reaction castings to 1^-inch rivets along the edge of 
these wings and If-inch bolts near the back. 

Thirty-fourth. With the adjustments provided, it will be per¬ 
missible to provide holes in the shop to connect the end reaction cast¬ 
ings to the structural work. These holes to be made three-eighths 
inch smaller than the size of bolts that go through them. 

Thirty-fifth. It has been decided to increase the thickness of 
babbitt between the nickel steel bearing plates and end reaction cast¬ 
ings from one-half to five-eighths inch. 

Thirty-sixth. In place of the one-half-inch bent plates on the up¬ 
stream side of girder No. 1, an 8 by 6 by one-half-inch angle will 
be used, the corners of the same to be neatly rounded to prevent the 
ropes from cutting. 


BEPORT OF COMMITTEE IN DETAIL. 


PART I. 


Drawings. 

Circular 576, paragraphs 13, 14, 15, and 16, provides: 

13. The “ General plans ” show the heights and general arrangement of the 
different gates, the spacing of the horizontal girders, and the vertical frames, 
etc., and the sizes of shapes and plates used in each leaf. 

On the “ Detail plans ” are shown the shape of the leaf, arrangement of the 
riveted structural work, including splices, connections, and the numbers and 
sizes of the rivets and bolts; also the detail of the manholes, the pumping 
system, the handrailing, and footwalks, etc., and all the important castings 
and forgings. 

These plans refer mainly to the gates 77 feet high, the details applying with 
slight modifications to the gates of a different height. The special footwalk 
for lower guard gates is shown separately. 

14. From the above drawings and such others in explanation of details or 
minor modifications of plans as may be furnished him later, the contractor, 
after the award of the contract, shall prepare all necessary working drawings 
for the gate leaves and fixed parts, with a detailed calculation of weights. 

15. Before any material is ordered or work begun, these working plans must 
be approved by the chief engineer, or his authorized representatives, and any 
material ordered or work done by the Contractor prior to the approval of the 
dawings shall be entirely at his own risk. They shall be submitted in dupli¬ 
cate, one copy of each drawing to be retained by the Commission and the other 
to be returned to the Contractor approved or with an indication of changes 
desired. Such approval shall be taken as certifying to the general agreement 
of the working drawings with the contract plans as to arrangement and sizes 
of the principal members, but shall not relieve the contractor from full re¬ 
sponsibility for the correctness of his shop drawings, for errors in details, 
such as rivet spacing, clearances, packing of plates, etc., which might interfere 
with either the strength or appearance of the finished work or with accurate 
and speedy erection. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for and shall 
correct, without charge, any mistakes that may be discovered in the work prior 
to the final acceptance by the Commission. 

16. No changes shall be made in any approved plan without the consent in 
writing of the chief engineer, or his authorized representatives, and the actual 
work shall conform in every respect to these drawings. 

The Commission, however, reserves the right to make any minor changes it 
may see fit to make in the original contract drawings, the working plans, and 
the specifications for material and workmanship prior to the final acceptance 
of any part of the finished material: Provided, however, That for any extra 
expense incurred by the Contractor for material furnished or ordered, drawings 
made, or work executed prior to the time of receiving notice of such change, 
he shall be reimbursed at reasonable rates to be fixed, in each case, by agree¬ 
ment between the contracting parties. 

Any claim for such changes shall be made by the contractor at the time of 
the change, or no allowance will be made or money paid on account of same. 

The principal witnesses in connection with the way in w T hich the 
shop drawings were submitted and approved, and as to the delay in 
connection with the submission of shop drawings and the delay in 

75 




76 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


their approval, are Mr. Goldmark, Mr. Pendergrass, Mr. Winter- 
bottom, Mr. Wolf el, and Mr. Marshall. 

The testimony of Mr. Goldmark, in connection with the approval 
of shop drawings and what was done to furnish the contractor with 
the necessary information to enable him to prepare the shop draw¬ 
ings, is found in the report of Mr. Goldmark, marked, for the pur¬ 
poses of reference, Exhibit No. 1, and the testimony of Mr. Gold- 
mark, marked Exhibit (volume) No. 8. 

Mr. Wolf el’s testimony is found in Exhibit No. 7, volume 7. 

Mr. Marshall’s testimony is found in Exhibit No. 11, volume 11. 

Mr. Pendergrass’s and Mr. Winterbottom’s testimony is found in 
Exhibit No. 15, volume 15. 

Mr. Goldmark, who was the designing engineer and had charge 
of the organization and control of the inspecting force which in¬ 
spected the material for the lock gates, reported at Rankin July 7, 
1910, and went over the specifications with a view to determining 
the manner in which the material would be fabricated. 

He remained at Rankin from July 7 until about August 12, 1910. 
During the time that he Avas there the agreement of August 8, 1910, 
was consummated. This agreement is quoted in the appendix to 
the claim. 

By it changes were made in the manner in which the material 
would be fabricated, which affected the work to be performed under 
the contract, as claimed by the contractor, by increasing the shop 
and field cost to the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. $172,396, 
and decreasing the shop and field cost to the McClintic-Marshall 
Construction Co. $58,323. 

No additional time was claimed for these changes at the time 
they were made. This change in the cost of the material is shown 
in Exhibit No. 27, volume 27, in a letter prepared by the McClintic- 
Marshall Construction Co., dated April 30, 1915. 

The entire subject of delay in the performance of the contract 
was covered in a supplemental agreement entered into the 20th day 
of May, 1913, which is quoted in full as Exhibit No. 18 of Mr. Gold¬ 
mark’s testimony, General Exhibit No. 8, volume No. 8. 

At the time of making this agreement all of the delay in the 
preparation of the working drawings and the furnishing of data 
in connection therewith, that could have affected the contractor, had 
taken place. 

This agreement was more or less of a compromise. It states that: 

Whereas the contractor is entitled to a considerable part of the additional 
time it claims; and 

Whereas the allowance of any considerable length of time for completion of 
the lower guard gates at Gatun, the lower guard gates at Miraflores, and cer¬ 
tain other gates the completion of which is necessary in order to permit any 
use of the canal, will delay the completion and opening of the canal long past 
the essential dates determined on by the Commission, and will otherwise 
greatly damage the Commission by interfering with the orderly prosecution of 
other work now under contract and thereafter to be done by the Commission • 
and 

Whereas it will be difficult to determine the exact time that should be allowed 
upon the claims made by the contractor. 

The Contractors summarized their claims for delays prior to the 
making of this supplemental contract as shown in blue prints marked 
“Exhibits A and B” and introduced as Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2 in 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


77 


the testimony of Col. Jervey (General Exhibit 24), volume 24. 
From the blue print marked U A,” it appears that there was a claim 
for additional time on account of delay headed “ Drawings and 
ordering material for water-tight frames,” 114 days, applicable to 
all gates, or all the work; changes in skin of 77-foot leaves, 7 days, 
applicable to all locks; air-tight pump chamber, pumping system, 
and mitering devices, 23 days, applicable to all looks; further 
changes in manhole covers, vertical hinge, groove added for rubber, 
28 days, applicable to all gates except the 54-foot-8-inch gates; de¬ 
lay in approving drawings for 66-foot and 82-foot leaves, applicable 
only to those leaves, 75 days. 

In this claim for additional time, all of the delays above claimed 
are indicated bv a star as being cumulative. 

Exhibits A and B, with the initials “ Id. G.,” being the initials 
of Mr. Henry Goldmark, Exhibits 141 and 142 of the testimony 
taken on the Isthmus (General Exhibit No. 32), volume 32 (see 
Isthmus Exhibit, vol. 31), give the amount of time that should be al¬ 
lowed for the causes specified above, as apparently approved by Mr. 
Goldmark, as follows: 

Drawings and ordering material for water-tight frames, 50 da} r s. 

Nothing for the change in skin of 77-foot leaves. 

Air-tight pump chamber, pumping system, and mitering device, 23 
days. 

Nothing for changes in manhole cover, vertical hinge, groove 
added for rubber. 

Delay in approving drawings for 66-foot and 82-foot leaves, 75 
days. 

The delay of 50 days in drawings and ordering material for water¬ 
tight frames is marked “ Cumulative.” 

The dela} r for the 66-foot and 82-foot leaves is marked “ Cumula¬ 
tive.” 

These two exhibits show that the delay due to the failure to fur¬ 
nish the necessary data to enable the Contractor to prepare the work¬ 
ing drawings was taken into consideration in connection with the 
making of the supplemental agreement. 

It seems to your committee that, to the extent to which the causes 
of delay were "adjudicated in the making of the supplemental agree¬ 
ment, that agreement should be held to be conclusive and binding 
upon the parties to the contract. To the extent to which there are 
causes of delay which were not considered and which were not adjudi¬ 
cated in the supplemental agreement, there probably should be addi¬ 
tional time allowed, and the claim adjudicated upon the basis of the 
allowance of such additional time. 

There are some causes of delay which do not appear to have been 
taken into consideration and adjudicated in the making of the supple¬ 
mental agreement. 

Some of these alleged causes are: Unreasonable demands of the 
Commission's inspectors; delays from failure to promptly decide 
questions in relation to inspection; delays in inspecting material: 
and such delays as may have resulted from a change in the size of 
the subpunched holes. 

These alleged causes of delays will be considered first in connec¬ 
tion with claim No. 2 of the Contractor, for increased cost of fabri¬ 
cation of the material. 


78 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


The claim of the Contractor for extra cost of working drawings 
due to delay in furnishing complete designs and data for changes 
made, and in approval of working drawings, does not appear to 
have been adjudicated and settled in the supplemental agreement. 

If this was strictly a legal claim, the Contractor would be con¬ 
cluded under the terms of the contract from asserting any claim for 
increased cost due to changes he was required to make in the draw¬ 
ings. 

Article 4 of the contract provides for minor changes and contains 
this provision: 

That for any extra expense incurred by the Contractor for material furnished 
or ordered, drawings made, or work executed prior to the time of receiving 
notice of such change, the Contractor shall be reimbursed at reasonable rates, 
to be fixed in any case by agreement between the contracting parties. Any 
claim for such changes shall be made by the Contractor at the time of the change 
or no allowance will be made or money paid on account of the same. 

The act of Congress, however, makes it the duty, in reporting upon 
this claim, to ascertain— 

What amount, if any, is in justice, equity, and fairness due and owing to the 
said McClintic-Marshall Construction Company from the Isthmian Canal Com¬ 
mission for work and labor done and material furnished in connection with the 
construction of the lock gates and appurtenances for the Panama Canal * * * 

taking into consideration the claim of the Contractor that the work was done 
under requirements, as to character and finish, not fairly within the meaning 
of the specifications. 

There were many changes made in the design, and these changes 
did increase the cost of the shop drawings to the Contractor. 

The original estimate of the Contractor for drawing charge was 
eight-tenths of 1 cent a hundred, or a total of $8,557. (See original 
estimate attached to Mr. Marshall’s testimony, General Exhibit No. 
11, volume 11.) The cost to the Contractor for drawings was 1.9 
cents a hundred, or $20,051. (See General Exhibit No. 26, giving 
the total shop cost and analysis of expenses incurred in the United 
States and on the Isthmus.) 

The manner in which the amount of the claim of $8,890 was ar¬ 
rived at is shown in an estimate prepared by Mr. R. A. Pendergrass, 
the engineer in charge of the preparation of drawings for the 
McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. This estimate is dated April 
27, 1915, and was submitted as a part of the data compiled from the 
books of the Contractor at Rankin, between April 11, 1915, and May 
1, 1915, General Exhibit No. 27, volume 27. For ready reference ia 
copy of this estimate is attached to this report and marked “Appen¬ 
dix A.” 

Under this estimate it appears that prior to August 8, 1910, there 
had been charged against drawings a little over $600. It is stated 
that it is safe to assume that at that time they had spent $700. 

In addition to this it is assumed by the Contractor that the lack 
of information in the beginning to prepare the drawings probably 
increased the cost of the drawings approximately 5 per cent. 

The Contractor claims that the entire $700 expense that had been 
charged to drawings prior to August 8, 1910, was a loss to him, and 
that he should be reimbursed therefor. He claims, in addition to 
this, an estimated loss due to lack of information of $1,000, which 
would make $1,700. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


79 


In addition to this he makes a detailed explanation of the claim, 
as follows: 

1. Change in pump chamber as outlined on page 24 of Appendix: This 
change required the making over after having been once completed of drawings 
1-B to 5-B, inclusive, and considerable changes on sheets 3-A, 4-A, 5-A, 6 to 
18, inclusive, 22, 47, 98, and 99. This change therefore required making over 
5 sheets which we have estimated to cost $45 each, and the revising of 20 sheets 
the cost of which we have estimated to be $400, or a total of $625. 

2. Change in gauges as outlined on page 34 of Appendix. This required 
changes on the following drawings: 3-A, 3-B, 4-A, 4-B, 5-A, 5-B, 6 to 18, 
inclusive; 47 to 64, inclusive; 73 to 78, inclusive; 81, 82, 84, 107, 108, 124, 127, 
and 129, or a total of 51 drawings in all. The cost of revising these drawings 
we have estimated at $10 each, or a total of $510. 

3. Changes in air vent as outlined on page 27 of Appendix: This required 
revisions on drawings 3-A, 3-B, 4-A, 4-B, 5-A, 5-B, and 6 to 13, inclusive, or 
a total of 14 drawings, the cost of revising of which we have estimated to be 
$15 per sheet, or a total of $210. 

4. Change in manhole frames as outlined on page 20 of Appendix: This re¬ 
quired revising drawings 115 and 116 and the making of two new drawings 
137 and 138. We have estimated the cost of revising the two drawings to be 
$30 and the cost of making two new drawings $90, or a total of $120. 

5. Change in mitering mechanism as outlined on page 32 of Appendix: This 
required the revising of drawings 119, 120, 121, 123, 20-B, 20-C, and 97, a total 
of seven drawings, the cost of revising of which we have estimated at $15 each, 
or a total of $105. 

6. Adding bent angles at top of air chamber as outlined on page 30 of Appen¬ 
dix : This required revisions on drawings 12 and 13; we estimate cost of same to 
be $30. 

7. Changes in sheathing plates as outlined on page 32 of Appendix: This 
required the revision of drawings 37 to 45, inclusive; 28, 34, 35, 22, 23, 24, 25, 
28, 1-A, 1-B, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, and 55 to 60, inclusive; also the making over 
of drawings 36, 26, 27, 29, and 61; also the making of additional drawings 146, 
147, 148, 149, 150, and 151. The additional work required for this change is 
therefore represented by the revision of 31 drawings, making over of 5 drawings, 
and making 6 new drawings, and the total cost of this we estimate to be $805. 

8. Mr. Hammer borrowed from us a man to prepare design drawings of 
manhole covers and frames, according to the ideas of himself and Mr. Guynn, 
as mentioned on page 4 of Appendix. He prepared I. C. C. drawings 201 to 
210, inclusive, a total of nine drawings at an estimated cost of $20 each or $180. 

9. After a drawing had been submitted for approval, showing the curb for 
lower guard gate made of cast iron as shown on design, Mr. Hammer requested 
that this be entirely changed, using structural steel instead of cast iron, which 
required the making of one additional drawing at the estimated cost of $45. 
The number of this drawing was 178. 

10. A considerable amount of time was spent by the writer with Mr. Ham¬ 
mer in experimenting on and testing out different styles of gaskets for manhole 
covers. We believe that the drafting room spent probably $100 on this work, 
which does not include that part of the cost of this experimenting which was 
charged against the shop pay roll. 

11. The work in the drafting room was delayed and the expense thereof 
increased on account of the delay in approval of drawings as outlined on pages 
34 to 40, inclusive, of Appendix. This delay in the approval, particularly of 
the latter contracts, necessitated keeping draftsmen on this contract longer 
than would have been otherwise necessary. This amounted to considerable, as 
the drawings for the 66-foot gates were not approved for about 11 months after 
they had been submitted. The delay in approving these drawings, as well as 
those for the 82-foot gate, delayed any action upon the working up of spare 
parts. We pushed Mr. Hammer for the approval of the drawings for these two 
particular contracts, and not obtaining very much satisfaction, Mr. McClintic 
wrote to Mr. Goldmark, as mentioned on page 37 of Appendix. This delay re¬ 
sulted in increased cost in getting out the spare parts on account of the length 
of time which had elapsed since the drawings for the gates had been made. 
We believe that while it is questionable how much the cost of these delays in 
approving the drawings amounted to, yet it would not be unfair to assume 
that this would probably equal 5 per cent of the total cost of the drawings, or 
in the neighborhood of $1,000. 


80 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


Tlie specifications and contract called for the contractor to furnish erection 
diagrams showing the application of the spare parts to the various gates, but 
did not require them to determine what spare parts would actually be required, 
except that in general these spare parts would consist of a complete 82-foot 
gate and a few other pieces for a 79-foot gate. We approached Mr. Hammer 
several times for more definite information as to exactly what spare parts 
were to be used, and finally got from him a general idea of what, was wanted. 
This, however, was verbal, and was given only in a very general way, and 
necessitated our taking one of the men who had checked a great deal of this 
work off from the work on which he was engaged to go into this matter in detail 
and prepare list of spare parts which should be used. This matter was gone 
over with Mr. Hammer and revised, and after a considerable length of time 
we received the final information as to exactly what parts we were to furnish. 
The expense of all of this work, which we believe was not a part of our con¬ 
tract, would amount to probably $250. In addition to this work on the spare 
parts, Mr. Hammer insisted that we field check over all of the pieces furnished 
as spare parts to make sure that they woidd match up and build up the gates 
as required. This required the services of two of the highest-priced men that 
had been used for this work for a period of several weeks, at a cost of at least 
$300. This was required of us by Mr. Hammer after we thought we had all 
of the work required for the spare parts entirely finished. 

When the drawings were ready for approval prints of the same were sub¬ 
mitted to Mr. Hammer. However, he took practically no action on such prints 
unless he had the man in charge of the squad at his elbow to assist him in 
going over these details and to answer any questions which he might raise. This 
work was constantly interrupted by Mr. Hammer’s time being taken for other 
work. This same thing was true in securing his approval of tables of quantities 
and weights and field rivets. It was also Mr. Hammer’s practice to call upon 
this same man whenever questions came up in regard to details as relating 
to shop work, field work, material, or shipping weights, so that we believe we 
are safe in saying that at least one-half of this man’s time was spent in Mr. 
Hammer’s office instead of in the drafting room. This not only took up his time, 
but had an indirect effect in increasing the cost of drawings on account of his 
absence from the squad of men over which he had charge. The first drawings 
were submitted for approval September 17, 1910, and the last drawings, not 
including the spare parts, were finally approved March 18, 1912, approximately 
18 months* Assuming that at least one-half of this time was spent in Mr. 
Hammer’s office, it would appear that the cost of the drawings was therefore 
increased at least $1,500 and possibly as much as $2,000. 

We give below a summary of these various amounts: 


Lost time at the start_ $700 

Delays on account of information_1, 000 

Change in pump chamber_ 625 

Change in gauges- 510 . 

Changes in air vent_ 210 

Change in manhole frames_ 120 

Change in mitering mechanism_ 105 

Addition of bent angles top of air chamber_ 30 

Change in sheathing plates_ 805 

Man loaned to Mr. Hammer- 180 

Change in cast-iron curbs- 45 

Experimenting with manhole covers_ 100 

Delay in approving drawings-1, 000 

Extra work on spare parts- 550 

Man in Mr. Hammer’s office- 1 , 500 


This total amount as given above is $7,480, instead of $8,890, as given in the 
claim. The reason for this discrepancy is due to the fact that, as previously 
stated, this list is not completed, and also because the amount of the claim was 
arrived at in a different manner, as follows: 

There was a total of 187 shop drawings, 48 diagrams, and 55 shop drawings 
made by our subcontractors. To determine the amount of the claim it would 
seem that the most reasonable way is to estimate what we consider as a fair 
and liberal amount for making these drawings and that the difference between 
this amount and what they actually cost would be the cost of the delays, 
changes, etc. We have records showing that the average cost of drawings for 

















McC LIN TIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


81 


a considerable length of time was $37 per sheet. This was an average of all 
the drawings made by us over a considerable period, including erection dia¬ 
grams. Some of these drawings were much simpler than the lock gates, and 
some more complicated. On the lock gates the diagrams for the first gate were 
rather expensive, but after that, they were made very cheaply. The drawings 
made by the subcontractors were checked by us and certain time was spent 
in giving them information, such as the spacing of holes to connect to steel¬ 
work. We have therefore estimated a liberal amount, figured as follows: 


187 shop details, at $45 per sheet_$8,415 

48 diagrams, at $30 per sheet_ 1, 440 

55 subcontractors’ drawings, at $25 per sheet_ 1, 375 


or a total of $11,230, as against the original estimate of $8,200, and against 
the actual cost of $19,403. In obtaining the amount of the claim we took the 
difference between the actual cost of $10,403 and the amount of our last esti¬ 
mate of $11,230, or $8,173, and added to this a profit of $717, or a total of $8,890. 

Mr. Pendergrass was also examined as to the reasonableness of 
these charges when his testimony was taken at Rankin June 26 and 
2)0 and July 2 and 3, and he stated (General Exhibit No. 15, vol. 15, 
Pendergrass’s testimony, p. 87), in response to a question: 

Have you any reason to change the estimate that you made at the time I 
was here in Pittsburgh? 

which question referred to the estimate above given— 

A. Yes, sir. Under change in pump chamber, claim C-3, I stated that this 
change required the making over of 5 drawings and the revising of 20. Since 
making that statement to you, I have found a note of Mr. Froessel, who at that 
time was in charge of the shop drawings, dated Ocober 31, 1910, in which 
he stated that this change required the making over of 6 drawings, and the 
revision of 28. That is the only correction that I have to make. 

It is very difficult at this time to determine with any degree of 
accuracy just what part of the extra expense in connection with the 
drawings should be charged to the Commission. Early in the work, 
on October 25, 1910, Mr. Hammer called the attention of Mr. Wolfel 
to the fact that subcontractors were not making the corrections which 
he found necessary on account of errors-on their part, and for other 
reasons. He states in this letter that— 

In some instances blue prints showing the same castings have been re¬ 
viewed and corrected three times by myself before I found that the correc¬ 
tions had been properly made. This unnecessary checking of drawings, and 
the unsatisfactory way in which corrections have been made, has taken up 
altogether too much of my time, to the detriment and delay of other work 
that needed my attention ; for instance, the approval of shop drawings for the 
structural work. 

It also appears that, as to at least one of the charges, that as to 
the manhole covers, it was understood at the time that the change 
was made that there was to be no additional charge allowed, and no 
claim made for delay. 

The following correspondence on this subject shows the agreement 
that was reached in connection with changes in the drawings for the 
manhole covers: 

On February 15, 1911, Mr. Hammer cabled to the Isthmus as 
follows: 

Please cable Goldmark Contractor willing to manufacture manholes as per 
sketch 209, for original unit price; no extra. Recommend keeping Guynn here 
until first leaf assembled complete, to familiarize himself with all particulars. 
Otherwise let him go to Isthmus when first shipment leaves Baltimore. 


29249°—H. Doc. 906, 64-1-6 






82 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


On February 28, 1911, the following cable was sent: 

Please cable Goldmark, referring to your cable of 17th, Contractors agree 
in letter of yesterday to provide manhole covers in accordance with sketch 209, 
now revised and given No. 210. The cost will be original unit price; no 
extra cost; and no delay will be claimed if change adopted without delay. 

On March 1, 1911, Mr. Hammer received the following cable: 

For Mr. Hammer, referring to your cable of 19th ultimo, manhole covers, 
change authorized on understanding as stated. 

Under the terms of the contract the Contractor was required to 
familiarize himself with the work, and to prepare detailed drawings. 
It does not seem to your committee, therefore, that the entire amount 
of $700 which the Contractor claims to have spent prior to the 
agreement of August 8, 1910, should be charged to the Commission. 
It is difficult to make an estimate as to the amount of this charge 
that should be assumed by the Commission, due to the lack of infor¬ 
mation. It seems to your committee to be fair and reasonable that 
this charge should be divided, and one-half assumed by the Corgr.nis- 
sion and one-half borne by the Contractor. 

The estimate of 5 per cent for increase in the cost of drawings, 
due to the lack of information, is probably too high, and is reduced 
to $600. 

The estimate for changes, item No. 1, seems to be reasonable and 
should be allowed. 

The estimate in item No. 2, the same. 

The estimate for item 3 should be allowed, as well as the estimate 
for item 4. 

The estimate for item 5 should be allowed. 

The estimate for item 6 seems to be reasonable and should be 
allowed. 

The estimate for item 7 should be allowed. 

Item No. 8 appears to be an estimate for services that were fur¬ 
nished to Mr. Hammer. These services, under the agreement as shown 
in the cablegrams above quoted, are not a proper legal charge against 
the Panama Canal. It is my opinion, however, that as the Commis¬ 
sion had the benefit of the services, and as the design was undoubtedly 
improved by reason of such services, this item should be allowed. 

Item No. 9 is reasonable and should be allowed. 

Item No. 10 appears to cover an expenditure that was made with a 
view to improving the design, and should be allowed. 

Item 11. There was undoubtedly some delay in approving the 
drawings referred to in this item, and it must have cost the Contrac¬ 
tor some money. There is no way of arriving at the exact amount 
that should be allowed for this item. The Contractor does not seem 
to be able to give anything more than an estimate of the cost that he 
was put to on account of the delay in the approval of the drawings; 
and it does not seem to me probable that the amount of expense that 
he was put to on that account could have equaled 5 per cent of the 
total cost of the drawings. I think probably $600 will cover all 
equitable claims that the Contractor has on account of the delavs 
in the approval of drawings shown under this item. 

I think the estimate for extra work in connection with the spare 
parts should be allowed. The estimate that at least one-half of the 
time of a high-priced man for 18 months was spent with Mr. Ham- 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


83 


nier in approving drawings seems to me to be unreasonably high. 
It must be considered that it was the duty of the Contractor to give 
Mr. Hammer such information in connection with the drawings as 
was necessary for him to properly check them. If doubtfu] points 
appeared in the drawings, it was natural and proper for Mr. Ham¬ 
mer to call upon the Contractor for the services of some one to ex¬ 
plain the doubtful points. It is probable from the testimony that 
Mr. Hammer utilized the services of the employees of the McClintic- 
Marshall Construction Co. to excess in connection with the checking 
of the drawings; and I think that it will be fair and just to assume 
that one-half of the estimate made would cover the services of such 
employee for such extra time as he gave to Mr. Hammer in connec¬ 
tion with the approval of the drawings. 

This claim should, therefore, be allowed in the following amounts: 


Lost tiraa at the start_ $350 

Delays on account of information_ 600 

Change in pump chamber_ 625 

Change in gauges_ 510 

Changes in air vent_ 210 

Change in manhole frames_ 120 

Change in mitering mechanism_ 105 

Addition of bent angles, top of air chamber_ 30 

Change in sheathing plates_ 805 

Man loaned to Mr. Hammer_ 180 

Change in cast-iron curbs_ 45 

Experimenting with manhole covers_ 100 

Delay in approving drawings_ 600 

Extra work on spare parts_ 550 

Man in Mr. Hammer’s office (loaned)_ 750 


Total_5,580 


Claim No. 2. 

The second claim of the Contractor is as follows: 

Increased cost of fabrication, due to delay in furnishing the Contractors the 
necessary data, unfair demands of the Commission’s engineers, and unreason¬ 
able shop inspection, $320,892. 

In arriving at the amount of this claim the Contractor states 
that the shop labor and surcharge on the lock gates was over $4 per 
ton higher than the average cost of all the work turned out in the 
same shop in the preceding year and the year succeeding the fabri¬ 
cation of the lock gates. He also states that this work should have 
been done at about $2 per ton less than the average cost of all the 
work for the preceding and succeeding years, for the reason that 
there was so much duplication in the work and such a large pro¬ 
portion of the work simply punched and drilled, without being as¬ 
sembled or riveted. 

In this w T ay he arrives at the conclusion that the loss due to the un¬ 
reasonable demands of the engineers and inspectors of the Isthmian 
Canal Commission is $6 a ton on 53,482 tons of material. 

The first question to be determined in connection with the investiga¬ 
tion of this claim is, whether or not it is a fact that the fabrication 
of the lock-gate material cost $4 a ton more than the average cost 
for fabricating material of the same or similar character in shop 
No. 2 at Rankin. 























84 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


The next question to be determined is, whether or not it should 
have been fabricated at $2 a ton less than other material of similar 
character being fabricated in shop No. 2. 

With a view to determining, as nearly as possible, how the cost 
of fabrication of this material compared with the cost of fabricating 
other material that was fabricated in shop No. 2, such data was ob¬ 
tained from the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. as they were 
able to furnish indicating the cost of fabricating material in shop 
No. 2 for the period from December 9, 1909, to November 30, 1910, 
inclusive; the cost of fabricating all material that was fabricated in 
shop No. 2 during the period from December, 1910, to January, 1913, 
inclusive; and also the cost of fabricating material in shop No. 2 
from February, 1913, to January 30, 1914, inclusive. (See vol. 26, 
general expenses, 26.) 

An examination of the books of the McClintic-Marshall Construc¬ 
tion Co. discloses the fact that the departmental shop cost and the 
general expenses of shops Nos. 1 and 2, at Rankin, are so intimately 
connected with each other and so kept that it is hard to segregate 
them with any degree of accuracy or certainty. (See vol. 27, Ran¬ 
kin data.) | 

From the data furnished by the Contractor, and an examination 
of his books, it appears that the manufacturing cost and the general 
expense, as shown by the records of the McClintic-Marshall Con¬ 
struction Co., for the period from December, 1909, to November, 
1910, inclusive, and for the period from December, 1910, to Janu¬ 
ary, 1913, inclusive, and for the period from February, 1913, to 
January, 1914, inclusive, were as follows: 



Tons. 

Manufac¬ 
turing cost. 

Per ton. 

Shop 2 lock gate . 

53,943 

14,002 

58,406 

$474,161.54 
114,883.68 
429,894. 39 

$8.79 
8.19 
7.36 

Shop 2 other material ... 

fUinp 1 material _______ 


126,351 





General expenses—103.6 per cent of $474,161.53 is $401,231.35. 

Lock-gate material general expenses. 


Tons. 

General 

expense. 

Per ton. 

Shop 2, lock gate. 

53,943 
14,002 
58.406 

$491,231.35 
119,019. 49 
445,099.11 

$9.10 
8.50 
7.62 

Shnp 2 other material... 

Shop 1, material. 



Total expense manufacturing lock-gate materials: Per ton. 

Manufacturing_$8. 79 

General expenses___ 9.10 

- Per ton. 

Total- $17.*§9 

Total expense other material passing through shop 2 at same 
time: 

Manufacturing_ 8.19 

General expenses_ 8. 50 


Total- 16. 69 


Difference_ 1. 20 





































McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 85 

Total manufacturing expenses, shops 1 and 2, compared: Per ton - 

Shop 2, 67,945 tons, manufacturing cost, total $589,045.22_ $8, 67 

Shop 1, 58,406 tons, manufacturing cost, total $429,894.39_ 7. 36 


Difference_ 1. 31 


Shop 2, 67,945 tons, general expenses, cost, $610,250.84_ 8. 98 

Shop 1, 58,408 tons, general expenses, cost, $445,099.41_ 7. 62 


Difference_ 1. 36 


Shop 2: Per ton. 

Total manufacturing cost_$8. 67 

General expenses_ 8.98 


Total cost_ 17. 65 

Shop 1: 

Total manufacturing cost_ 7. 36 

General expenses_ 7. 62 


Total cost_ 14.98 


Difference_ 2. 67 


Difference between manufacturing cost of lock gate and material 

shop 1 is-1. 43 

Difference between general expenses of lock gate and material 
shop 1 is- 1. 48 


Total difference__ 2. 91 

Difference in cost of manufacturing of lock-gate material and other 

material going through shop 2 at same time is, per ton_ 1. 20 

Difference between cost of manufacturing lock-gate material and 

material in shop 1 at same period is, per ton_ 2.91 

Difference between shop cost in shops 1 and 2 for all material, lock- 

gate period, is, per ton_ 2. 67 


The output of shops 1 and 2 were as follows for the period— 

From 1909 to 1910: 

Shop 1_ 39, 746 

Shop 2_ 44,419 


Total_ 84, 165 

From 1913 to 1914: 

Shop 1_ 33,479 

Shop 2_ 38,917 


Total_ 72, c<96 

Total manufacturing expenses from 1909 to 1910, shops 1 and 2-$529,464. 97 

Total manufacturing expenses from 1913 to 1914, shops 1 and 2_ 501, 22S, 84 


Total manufacturing cost from 1909 to 1910, shops 1 and 2, 

$529,464.97, divided by 84,165, equals, per ton- 6. 39 

Manufacturing cost 1913 to 1914, shops 1 and 2, $501,228.84, 

divided by 72,396 tons, equals, per ton- 6 91 

Manufacturing cost, shop 2, 1909 to 1910, $262,391.02, divided by 

44,419 tons, equals, per ton- 5. 91 

Manufacturing cost, shop 1, 1909 to 1910, $267,063.95, divided 

by 39.746 tons, equals, per ton- 0. 97 

Manufacturing cost of shop 2, 1913 to 1914, $255,505.15, divided 

by 38,417 tons, equals, per ton- 6 65 

Manufacturing cost of shop 1, 1913 to 1914, $245,723.69, divided 
by 33,981 tons, equals, per ton- 7. 23 


Average manufacturing cost per ton- 6. 5S 

i ---- 




















































86 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


General expenses of shops 1 and 2 from 1909 to 1910 equals 

83.1 per cent of $529,464.97, or_$440,197. 99 

General expenses of shops 1 and 2 from 1913 to 1914 equals 
99.9 per cent of $501,228.84, or_ 500, 827. 23 


General expenses of shops 1 and 2 from 1909 to 1910 equals 

$440,197.99, divided by 84,165, equals, per ton_ 5. 23 

General expenses of shops 1 and 2 from 1913 to 1914 equals 

$500,827.23, divided by 72,396, equals, per ton_ 6. 91 

General expenses for shop 2 from 1909 to 1910 equals 83.1 per cent 
of $262,391.02, or $218,046.94, divided by 44,419, equals, per ton__ 4. 91 

General expenses for shop 1 from 1909 to 1910 equals $221, 930. 44, 

divided by 39,762 tons, or, per ton_ 5. 58 

General expenses, 1913 to 1914, shop 2, equals 99.9 per cent of 

$255,505.15, or $255,249.64, divided by 38,417, equals, per ton_ 6. 64 

General expenses shop 1, 1913 to 1914, equals $266,551.02, divided 
by 33,981, equals, per ton_ 7. 23 


The average general expense per ton is_ 6. 08 


The above computations were made from data contained in volumes 
26 and 27 of the evidence. 

The average cost per ton, including manufacturing cost and gen¬ 
eral expense for all material that passed through Rankin shops Nos. 
1 and 2 for the period from December, 1909, to November, 1910, 
inclusive, and from February, 1913, to January, 1914, inclusive, was 
$12.59 a ton. This average cost is found by dividing the total charge 
for manufacturing cost plus the total charge for general expenses 
by the total tonnage for the period. The manufacturing labor costs, 
$1,030,693.81, plus the general expense of $941,025.22, equals $1,971,- 
719.03 as the total expense for the two periods named; $1,971,719.03 
divided by 156,561, the total tonnage for the period, gives an average 
tonnage price of $12.59 for all material passing through shops 1 
and 2 for the periods named. 

The average cost per ton, including manufacturing cost and gen¬ 
eral expense of material passing through shops 1 and 2, 1909 to 1910, 
is $11.52. This is found by dividing the total expense of $969,682.96 
by the total tonnage, 84,165. 

The average cost per ton, including manufacturing cost and general 
expense of all material that passed through shops 1 and 2 for the 
period from February, 1913, to January, 1914, inclusive, was $13.84. 
This is found by dividing the total manufacturing and general 
expense cost of $1,002,056.0? by the total tonnage of 72,396. 

The total departmental shop cost for shop No. 2, 1909 to 1910, was 
$262,391.02. The general expenses are not given by the claimant. 
The general expenses for this period, however, were 83.1 per cent of 
the departmental shop cost; 83.1 per cent of $262,391.02 equals 
$218,001.93, the general expenses for shop No. 2 for this period, giv¬ 
ing the total general and departmental shop cost as $480,392.95. 
This, divided by the total tonnage of 44,419, gives an average depart¬ 
mental and general expense cost per ton of $10.82. 

The departmental shop cost for shop No. 2, 1913 to 1914, is given 
as $255,505.15. The general expenses for shop No. 2 are included in 
the general expenses as given for shop No. 1. The percentage of 
general expenses for shops Nos. 1 and 2 for the period from 1913 to 
1914 is 99.9 per cent of the departmental shop cost; 99.9 per cent of 
$255,505.15 equals $255,249.66 as the general expenses of shop No. 2 
for the period from February, 1913, to January, 1914, inclusive. 












McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


87 


The amount of these two sums divided by the total tonnage of shop 
No. 2 for this period, 38,417, gives $13.29 as the total expenses per 
ton for fabricating material in shop No. 2 for the period named. 
The total departmental cost and general expenses for shop No. 2 for 
the periods from December, 1909, to November, 1910, inclusive, and 
from February, 1913, to January, 1914, inclusive, was $991,197.33. 
The total tonnage for shop No. 2 for the periods named was 82,836. 
The total expense divided by the total tonnage gives $11.97 a ton as 
the average cost of fabricating material in shop No. 2 for the periods 
named. 

If we should add the tonnage price for each period named and 
divide by 2 it would give $12.05 a ton. It must therefore be consid¬ 
ered as established that the average cost of fabricating material in 
shop No. 2 for these periods was at least $12 a ton. 

The total cost of fabricating all materials other than lock-gate 
material passing through shops Nos. 1 and 2 for the period from 
December, 1909, to January, 1914, inclusive, was $3,080,716. The 
total tonnage of such material was 228,969 tons. The total cost 
shown divided by this tonnage gives $13.45 as the cost per ton for 
fabricating all material other than lock-gate material in shops Nos. 1 
and 2 for the period stated. 

As a possible basis of comparison of shop cost of lock-gate mate¬ 
rial with other material the tonnage prices are shown in the table 
below: 

Per ton. 


Departmental and general expenses, 1909 to 1910, shop No. 2_$10. 82 

Departmental cost and general expenses, shop No. 2, 1913 to 1914_ 13. 29 

Departmental cost and general expenses, shop No. 2, for the periods De¬ 
cember, 1909, to November, 1910, and February, 1913, to January, 1914_ 11. 98 

Departmental shop cost and general expenses for all material other than 
lock-gate material passing through shops Nos. 1 and 2 for the period 

from December, 1909, to January, 1914, inclusive_ 13. 45 

Departmental shop cost and general expenses, shops 1 and 2, for the 
periods from December, 1909, to November, 1910, inclusive, and from 

February, 1913, to January, 1914, inclusive_ 12. 59 

Departmental shop cost and general expenses, shops 1 and 2, for the 

period from December, 1909, to November, 1910, inclusive_ 11. 52 

Departmental shop cost and general expenses, shops 1 and 2, for the 

period from February, 1913, to January, 1914, inclusive_ 13. 84 

Departmental shop cost and general expenses of material passing through 

shop 1 from December, 1909, to January, 1914, inclusive_ 14.10 

Departmental shop cost and general expenses of material passing through 

shop 1, lock-gate period- 14. 98 

Departmental shop cost and general expenses, shop 2, for all material 
passing through the shop other than lock-gate material during lock- 
gate period_ 16. 69 


If we should add the prices for material per ton shown in the 
above table together and divide the total by the number of prices 
established, it would give us an average price per ton of $13.32 for 
all material passing through shops 1 and 2, exclusive of lock-gate 
material, from December, 1909, to January, 1914, inclusive. The 
actual shop cost and general expenses for all material, other -than 
lock-gate material, divided by the number of tons passing through 
shops 1 and 2 for the period from December, 1909, to January, 1914, 
inclusive, however, gives an average tonnage price of $13.45. 

It will be noted from this table that the lowest departmental shop 
cost and general expense for any period is in shop No. 2, from 1909 








88 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


to 1910. It will also be noted that the shop cost and general ex¬ 
penses in shop 1 are higher than in shop 2 for all periods of com¬ 
parison except the lock-gate period. It will also be noted that the 
departmental shop cost and general expenses in shop 2 from Febru¬ 
ary, 1913, to January, 1914, inclusive, are $2.45 a ton higher than 
the departmental shop cost and general expenses of shop 2 for the 
period from December, 1909, to November, 1910, inclusive. In 
their analysis of the total shop cost and general expenses incurred 
in the United States, General Exhibit No. 26, the claimants do not 
attempt to give the departmental shop cost of shop No. 1, neither 
do they attempt in the data furnished during the examination of 
their books, Exhibit No. 27, to segregate the general expenses that 
are applicable to shops 1 and 2. It would seem, therefore, that in 
establishing a tonnage price for the fabrication of material other 
than lock-gate material that all of the material passing through 
shops 1 and 2 for the period from December, 1909, to January, 1914. 
inclusive, other than lock-gate material, should be taken into con¬ 
sideration. If this is to be taken as the right basis of comparison, 
then the average tonnage price of all material passing through shops 

1 and 2, exclusive of lock-gate material, for the 50 months from 
December, 1909, to January, 1914, inclusive, was $13.45. This would 
eliminate as many of the unknown quantities as is possible under the 
records that have been kept by the McClintic-Marshall Construction 
Co. There would still remain some uncertainty as to the correct¬ 
ness of the charge that has been applied as general expenses to the 
lock-gate material. It is the opinion of your committee, however, 
that it would be fair and reasonable, in view of the state of the 
records, to fix the price at which all other material in shops 1 and 

2 was fabricated during the lock-gate period, and for the year pre¬ 
ceding and the year succeeding the lock-gate period, at $13.45 a ton, 
and that this would seem to be a reasonable normal price with 
which the fabrication of the lock-gate material might be compared. 

If this is to be taken as a basis of comparison, then the lock-gate 
material on the record furnished cost $4.44 a ton more to fabricate 
than all other material passing through shops Nos. 1 and 2 at Rankin 
during the period from December, 1909, to January, 1914, inclusive. 
The Contractor’s claim, however, is based upon a comparison of 
lock-gate material with all material passing through shop No. 2 
for the periods from December, 1909, to January, 1910, inclusive, 
and from February, 1913, to January, 1914, inclusive. On the data 
furnished the departmental shop cost and general expenses for shop 
No. 2 for period stated is $991,197.33, and the output is 82,836 tons. 
The average price per ton is $11.97. Upon this basis the lock-gate 
material cost $5.92 more than all material passing through shop 
No. 2 for the periods from December. 1909, to November, 1910, in¬ 
clusive, and from February, 1913, to January, 1914, inclusive. Dur¬ 
ing this period the departmental shop cost and general expenses in 
shop No. 1 was $13.28 a ton. Compared with this the lock-gate mate¬ 
rial cost $4.61 a ton more than all material going through shop No. 1 
from December, 1909, to November, 1910, and from February, 1913, 
to January, 1914, inclusive. There is, however, no charge for de¬ 
preciation for the months of December, 1909, and January, 1910. 
In the way in which the average cost is arrived at this would affect 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


89 


the cost per ton for the entire periods from December, 1909, to No¬ 
vember, 1910, inclusive, and from February, 1913, to January, 1914, 
inclusive. The error amounts to 6 cents per ton. This added to 
$11.97 would make the cost per ton for fabricating material passing 
through shop No. 2 for the period from December, 1909, to Novem- 
1910, inclusive, and from February, 1913, to January, 1914, inclu¬ 
sive, $12.03. Twelve dollars and three cents is therefore the very 
lowest average price for the fabrication of material in shop No. 2 
with which it would be just to compare the cost of fabricating the 
lock-gate material. Taking this as the average cost per ton for 
fabricating material in shop No. 2 for the period from December, 
1909, to November, 1910, inclusive, and from February, 1913, to 
January, 1914, inclusive, the lock-gate material cost $5.86 per ton 
more than the average cost of fabricating all other material passing 
through shop No. 2 for the periods stated. 

It is a fact, therefore, on tire record furnished the departmental 
shop cost and general expenses for fabricating the lock-gate ma¬ 
terial were at least $4 a ton higher than the average cost of fabri¬ 
cating all other meterial turned out of shops Nos. 1 and 2 for the 
period from December, 1909, to January, 1914, inclusive, and that 
it was considerably over $4 per ton higher than the average shop 
cost of all material turned out of shop No. 2 for periods from De¬ 
cember. 1909, to November, 1910, and from February, 1913, to Janu¬ 
ary. 1914. as claimed on pages 68 and 69 of the claim. Compared 
with all other material passing through shops Nos. 1 and 2 for the 
period from December. 1909, to January, 1914. inclusive, the excess 
cost of fabricating the lock-gate material was $4.44 a ton. Com¬ 
pared with material passing through shop No. 2 for the period from 
December. 1909, to November, 1910, inclusive, and from February, 
1913, to January, 1914, inclusive, the excess of cost of fabricating 
the lock-gate material was $5.86 per ton. 

The above determinations as to excess cost in shop cost of the 
lock-gate material over all material passing through shop No. 2 
from December, 1909, to November, 1910, inclusive, and from Feb¬ 
ruary, 1913. to January, 1914, inclusive, and of all material passing 
through shops 1 and 2 for the period from December, 1909, to Janu¬ 
ary, 1914, inclusive, are based upon a departmental shop cost and 
general expenses for the lock-gate material of $17.89 a ton, and on a 
tonnage for the lock-gate material of 53,943 tons. 

The McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. did not give the tonnage 
upon which the departmental shop cost for the lock-gate material 
was based, and the tonnage has been arrived at by dividing the total 
cost by the cost per ton shown. The total tonnage in the depart¬ 
mental shop-cost record furnished of material passing through shop 
2 other than lock-gate material is not given. (See vol. 26 of the 
evidence.) 

The average departmental shop cost per ton for material other 
than lock-gate material fabricated in shop 2 from December, 1910. 
to January, 1913. inclusive, was $8.19 a ton. The total departmental 
.-hop cast for fabricating such material was $114,863.68. This divided 
by 8.19 would give the number of tons, other than lock-gate material, 
fabricated in shop 2 as 14,002 tons. This 14,002 tons includes the 
fabrication of the lock-gate material lost on the steamship Molde- 
ijaard , November 24, 1911. 


90 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


The total material fabricated in shop 2 during the lock-gate period, 
as shown by the records of the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co., 
was 67,945 tons. This is 1,324 tons more than as shown in the claim 
(see p. 72 of the claim). 

The total amount of material fabricated in shops 1 and 2 for the 
period from December, 1910, to January, 1913, inclusive, w T as 126,351 
tons. 

It appears, therefore, that the material fabricated in shops 1 and 2 
for the period from December, 1910, to January, 1913, inclusive, was 


as follows: 

Tons. 

Lock-gate material under original contract passing through shop 2- 53, 943 

Material other than lock-gate material and replace material, lost on 

the steamship Moldegaard, passing through shop 2_ 14, 002 

Material fabricated in shop 1 for this period_ 58, 406 


126, 351 

The tonnage price of fabricating the lock-gate material was in¬ 
creased by reason of the fact that there was a reduction in the out¬ 
put of shop No. 1 during the lock-gate period almost equal to the 
reduction in output of shop during the farbication of lock-gate ma¬ 
terial. It was also increased by reason of the fact that there were 
breakdowns in the power house of the McClintic-Marshall Construc¬ 
tion Co. during the months of July, August, and September, 1912. 

For the period from December, 1909, to November, 1910, inclusive, 
the output of shop No. 1 was 47.22 per cent of the total output of 
shops 1 and 2 for the period. For the same period, the output of shop 
No. 2 was 52.78 per cent of the total output of the two shops. For the 
period from December, 1910, to January, 1913, inclusive, which was 
the lock-gate period, the output of shop 1 was 46.2 per cent of the total 
output of shops 1 and 2. The output of shop No. 2 for the same 
period was 53.8 per cent of the total output of shops 1 and 2. For 
the period from February, 1913, to January, 1914, inclusive, the out¬ 
put of shop No. 1 was 46.24 per cent of the total output of both 
shops, and the output of shop No. 2 was 53.76 per cent of the total 
output of the two shops. 

From this it will be seen that the output of shop No. 1 was reduced 
in substantially the same proportion during the lock-gate period 
as the output of shop No. 2. Stated in tons, the output of shop No. 
1 for the lock-gate period was 2,246 tons per month. During the 
year immediately preceding the lock-gate period it was 3,312 tons, 
and during the year immediately succeeding the lock-gate period 
it was 2,833 tons per month. 

A reduction in the shop output of shop No. 1 for the period of 
the lock-gate construction would increase the general expenses per 
ton of the Output of shop No. 2 for the period during which the 
output in shop No. 1 was reduced. As shown above, the output of 
shop No. 1 during the period of fabrication of lock-gate material 
decreased in about the same proportion as the output of shop No. 2. 

If the output of shop No. 1 had been equal to the average output 
of this shop during the period from December, 1909, to November, 
1910, and from February, 1913, to January, 1914, inclusive, the total 
output of the two shops for the period of the lock-gate construc¬ 
tion would have been increased by 21,466 tons, and the total output 





McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


91 


of shops Nos. 1 and 2 for the lock-gate period would have been 
126,351 tons, plus 21,466 tons, or 147,817 tons. (For data see vol. 
27 of evidence.) 

This increase in general expenses due to loss of output in shop 
No. 1 is found as follows: 

The total tonnage for shop 1 for the lock-gate period was 58,406. 
This divided by 26 would give 2,246 tons as the monthly output. 
The tonnage of shop 1 for the 12 months immediately preceding and 
the 12 s months immediately succeeding the lock-gate period was 
73,725. This is equal to an average monthly tonnage of 3,072. This 
multiplied by 26, the number of months in the lock-gate period, 
would give a tonnage of 79,872 for shop 1, if the average had been 
maintained during the lock-gate period. The general expenses per 
ton during the lock-gate period in shop 1 was $7.62. At this rate, 
if we compare with a tonnage of 79,872, or for 26 months, the total 
general expenses for shop 1 for the lock-gate period would have 
been $608,624.64. At $6.35 per ton (79,872 tons) the total general ex¬ 
pense would have been $507,187.20. This shows a total increase in 
general expenses due to loss of output in shop No. 1 of $101,437.44. 
The total assumed tonnage on which this is based is 126,351, plus 
the difference between 58,406 tons, the actual tonnage of shop 1, 
and 79,872 tons, the assumed tonnage, making 147,817 tons on which 
the increase is based. One hundred and one thousand four hundred 
and thirty-seven dollars and forty-four cents divided by 147,817 
gives 69 cents as the increase per ton in general expenses due to loss 
of output in shop 1. 

There were breakdowns in the power house that affected the out¬ 
put of shop No. 2. In a letter of August 16, 1912, found in General 
Exhibit No. 4, index number of letter 287, the McClintic-Marshall 
Construction Co. claims a delay of 72 hours, or 7 days, and request an 
extension of time on this account for breakdowns in the power house. 

In a letter of September 6, 1912, same reference number as above, 
the details of the way in which these breakdowns affected the work 
are given. In the last paragraph of this letter of September 6, 
1912, the statement is made that “ These breakdowns entailed a delay 
in several departments of the shop, which when averaged make an 
aggregate of seven days’ lost time between July 9 and August 15, 
1912. 

In a letter of September 26, 1912, Exhibit No. 8, in the testimony 
of Mr. McClintic, found in General Exhibit No. 19, volume 19, Mr. 
McClintic stated: 

As you know, we have been terribly handicapped on account of breakdowns 
in our power house for the last two months, which largely accounts for this 
small tonnage. 

This letter was written in reply to a letter from Mr. Hammer 
complaining of the small amount of lock-gate material that was 
turned out during the month of August. 

In the claim, page 72, the output of material in shop 2 for May, 
1912, is given as 3,003 tons, the output for June as 2,601 tons, the out¬ 
put for July as 2,679 tons, the output for August as 2,716 tons, the 
output for September as 2,488 tons, the output for October as 3,047 
tons. It is a fact, therefore, that the output of shop No. 2 was con¬ 
siderably decreased owing to the breakdowns in the power house. 


92 


McCLTNTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


If we take the month of May, 1912, and the month of October, 
1912, as indicating the average output of shop No. 2 under the 
conditions as they existed at that time, it would amount to 3,025 
tons per month. The average output for the four months between 
October and May was 2,618 tons, showing a loss in output for these 
four months of 1,628 tons. The major part of this loss in output was 
undoubtedly due to the breakdowns in the power house of the Mc- 
Clintic-Marshall Construction Co. At the very low T est 1,200 tons of 
the reduced output should be charged to the breakdowns in the 
power house of the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. 

This reduction in the output of shop No. 2 of 1,200 tons, due to 
breakdowns in power house, increased the shop cost and general ex¬ 
penses in shop No. 2 by 30 cents a ton for the period during which the 
material was being fabricated. 

The increased shop cost and general expenses of shop No. 2 of 30 
cents a ton, due to breakdowns in power house, are ascertained in 
the following way: 

The total departmental shop cost and general expenses of shop No. 
2 for the lock-gate period was $1,199,296.06. This divided by 67.945, 
the tonnage of shop 2, would show that the departmental shop cost 
and general expenses were $17.65 per ton. One thousand two hun¬ 
dred tons added to this would give 69,145 tons as the total output if 
there had been no breakdowns in the power house. The total cost 
as shown, divided by this, would give a cost per ton of $17.35. The 
difference between $17.35 and $17.65 represents the increase in cost 
of fabricating the material in shop 2 due to the breakdowns in the 
power house, or 30 cents per ton. 

During the period that the lock-gate material was going through 
shop No. 2 the rising stem and lateral culvert valve material, W. O. 
28323, was going through shop No. 2. 

On September 10. 1912, Mr. Pittman, for the McClintic-Marshall 
Construction Co., called attention to the fact that considerable delay 
was being caused by the rejection of material on this contract. This 
undoubtedly affected the output of shop No. 2 to some extent, but 
it is not possible from the records to determine the amount of reduc¬ 
tion in output that was due to rejections under this contract. 

That the charge made above to cover the increased cost due to 
breakdowns in power house is justified is shown by the increase in 
the charge for repairs, fuel and water, and equipment adjustments, 
which appear in the summarv of the general expenses of the Rankin 
plant for the months of August, September, and October, 1912. 
(See General Exhibit No. 27, vol. 27, data compiled at Rankin, Pa., 
Apr. 11, 1915, to May, 1915, under direction of B. F. Harrah, mem¬ 
ber of committee.) 

The night force was taken off in September, 1911, and the output 
of shop No. 2 voluntarily reduced. (See Price’s testimonv, General 
Exhibit No. 10, vol. 10, p. 52.) 

The rivet and bolt pay roll for the months of October, November, 
and December, 1911, and for the months of January, February, and 
March, 1912, Rankin shops 1 and 2, were the lowest for any months 
during the fabrication of lock-gate material, with the single ex- 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


93 


ception of the month of February, 1911. The percentage of general 
expenses were higher during this period than they were for any 
other time during the fabrication of the lock-gate material. The 
total expenses, however, were somewhat reduced during this period, 
in fact the reduction in the total expenses was greater than the reduc¬ 
tion in the total output, so that apparently the average cost of fab¬ 
ricating the material in shops Nos. 1 and 2 was lower during this 
period than it was during the other periods of fabrication of the 
lock-gate material. This fact is stated for the purpose of showing 
that the output in shop No. 2 for this period was voluntarily reduced 
by the Contractor. It also tends to show that the manufacturing 
cost was greater during the period when the night force was on 
than when such force was not in use. 

The record shows that the output of shops Nos. 1 and 2 was 
greater for the four months immediately preceding October, 1911. 
For September, 1911, the general expenses had been reduced to 93.3 
per cent of the departmental shop cost in shops 1 and 2. The total 
average expense for fabricating material for shops 1 and 2 for 
this month was apparently $13.09. In shop No. 2 the work was pro¬ 
ceeding with less interruptions and less excessive cost than at prac¬ 
tically any other period of the fabrication of that material. 

The facts above stated with relation to the output of shops Nos. 
1 and 2, showing causes for the reduced output, are pertinent to this 
investigation as tending to show that the reduced output of shop 
No. 2 was due, in part at least, to other causes than the severity of 
the inspection and the requirements made by the Isthmian Canal 
Commission upon the Contractor. 

As above shown, the actual cost of fabricating the lock-gate ma¬ 
terial in shop 2 was $17.89 a ton, on the basis of a general expense of 
1.036 per cent of shop labor cost. This cost per ton, however, 
should be reduced by 99 cents a ton to take care of the increased gen¬ 
eral expenses in shop 1 for the lock-gate period, and by reason of 
the reduced output of shop 2 due to breakdowns in power house. The 
cost per ton with which the lock-gate material should be compared 
with all other material fabricated in shop 2, or in shops 1 and 2, or 
for any period in shop 2, is therefore $16.90 per ton. 

On this basis, the average cost of fabricating the lock-gate ma¬ 
terial was $4.87 a ton in excess of the average cost of fabricating 
material in shop No. 2 for the period from December, 1909, to No¬ 
vember, 1910, inclusive, and from February. 1913, to January, 1914. 
inclusive, so far as such average cost can be arrived at from the 
records of the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. 

Compared with all other material passing through shops 1 and 2 
for the period from December, 1909, to January, 1914, inclusive, the 
excess cost of fabricating the lock-gate material was $3.45 per ton. 

The claimant’s contention, as stated on pages 68 and 69 of the 
claim, that the lock-gate material cost $4 per ton more to fabricate 
than all other material passing through shop No. 2 for the periods 
from December, 1909, to November, 1910, inclusive, and from Feb¬ 
ruary, 1913, to January, 1914, inclusive, is established. 


94 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


The question as to whether or not the evidence shows that it 
should have cost more or less under normal and reasonable inspec¬ 
tion than all other material passing through shop No. 2 for the 
periods from December, 1909, to November, 1910, inclusive, and from 
February, 1913, to January, 1914, inclusive, is yet to be considered, 
as well as the question as to what part, if any, of the excess cost 
above what it should have been, if any should be found, was due to 
the Contractor being required to do the work “ under requirements 
as to character and finish not fairly within the meaning of the 
specifications.” 

Further consideration of claim No. 2 will be made on the basis of 
the evidence establishing the fact that it cost $12.03 a ton to fabricate 
all material passing through shop No. 2 for the periods from Decem¬ 
ber, 1909, to November, 1910, inclusive, and from February, 1913, to 
January, 1914, inclusive, and that it cost $13.45 per ton to fabricate 
all material passing through shops Nos. 1 and 2, other than lock- 
gate material, for the period from December, 1909, to January, 1914, 
inclusive, and that it cost $16.90 a ton to fabricate the lock-gate mate¬ 
rial, exclusive of the cost due to causes which ought not to enter into 
the comparison between the cost of the lock-gate material and other 
material passing through shop 2 or shops 1 and 2, for the reason that 
such excess cost, as above shown, was due wholly to causes for which 
the Contractor is unquestionably responsible. 

After the contract was let on the basis of the original specifica¬ 
tions, Mr. Henry Goldmark, the designing engineer, in going over 
plans and drawings with Mr. Paul Wolf el, the chief engineer of the 
Contractor, made radical changes. These changes are set forth in 
detail in the last pages of the claim. They were effected by a contract 
signed on August 8, 1910, referred to in the testimony as the agree¬ 
ment of August 8, 1910, copy of which is attached hereto. The 
changes as provided for in this agreement and other changes in de¬ 
tail and design authorized under the direction of Mr. Henry Gold- 
mark increased the manufacturing, shop labor, and general expenses 
by $118,647.29 and reduced it by $21,308, effecting a net change of 
$97,339.29 in the shop cost of this material. (For"an explanation of 
this increase in the shop cost, see the statement prepared by Mr. 
Pendergrass of the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co., April 30, 
1915, found in General Exhibit No. 27, vol. 27. A copy of this 
statement is attached hereto for ready reference—see Appendix B.) 

The principal consideration for the changes made by the agree¬ 
ment of August 8, 1910, was the provision relative to the end planing 
contained in paragraph 16 of the agreement of August 8, 1910. This 
paragraph reads as follows: 

Permission is granted of making the end reaction castings one story in height 
only. T his is done for the reason that the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. 
expects to demonstrate during the assembling of some of the gates in their 
yard that the work can be done so near correct that any minor adjustment can 
be made by means of babbitting between the end reaction castings and the 
nickel steel bearing plates and the planing of the end plates done at the shop 
instead of in the field. 

See testimony of Mr. Wolf el, General Exhibit No. 7, volume No. 7, 
page 71, fourth paragraph, also pages 106 to 151, with special refer¬ 
ence to pages 141 to 143, inclusive. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


95 


See testimony of Mr. Pendergrass, General Exhibit No. 15, volume 
15, pages 18 to 28, 100, 111, and 112. 

See testimony of Mr. Goldmark, General Exhibit No. 8, volume 
No. 8, pages 18 to 21, 172 to 178, and 212. See also Mr. Goldmark’s 
letter to Mr. Hammer, dated August 8, 1910, paragraph 8 (see p. 
199 of Mr. Goldmark’s report, marked “General Exhibit No. 1,” 
vol. 1). In this letter the modifications made in the agreement of 
August 8, 1910, are referred to by Mr. Goldmark as follows: 

I hiring the past week I have conferred with Mr. P. L. Wolfel, chief engineer 
of the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co., and have agreed upon a number of 
small modifications in the plans and specifications and certain different details 
not provided for in our plans, all of which are contained in blue-print memo¬ 
randum attached to this letter, and are to be considered binding. 

See letter of August 18, 1910, from Capt. Boggs to the chief 
quartermaster, also letter from the acting chief quartermaster, pre¬ 
pared by Mr. Goldmark, dated September 2, 1910. These letters are 
found in the report of Mr. Goldmark above referred to, pages 150 to 
157. The letter prepared by Mr. Goldmark is intended as an expla¬ 
nation of the changes to be effected in the agreement of August 
8, 1910. 

See also, in connection with the change in the weight, Mr. Gold¬ 
mark’s testimony, General Exhibit No. 8, volume 8, pages 23 to 25 
and pages 246 to 247. 

Whatever may have been the consideration for these changes, 
however, the important fact at this point is that the shop cost was 
increased by the amount shown. This increase in the shop cost was 
not due to the character of the inspection, except in so far as the 
cost may have been augmented by the inspectors requiring more and 
better work for this extra work than was called for in the agreement 
of August 8, 1910. 

The departmental shop cost and general expenses for fabricat¬ 
ing the lock-gate material as above found is based on a total ton¬ 
nage of 53,943 tons; $97,339.29 divided by 53,943 shows that the 
McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. expended $1.80 per ton to 
effect these changes. If it is assumed that the lock-gate material 
was as difficult to manufacture under the original specifications as 
other material passing through shop No. 2 for the periods from 
December, 1909, to November, 1910, inclusive, and from February, 
1913, to January, 1914, inclusive, it would have cost $12.03 a ton 
under the original specifications. If we divide $97,339.29 by $12.03, 
it would show that the extra cost added by the agreement of August 
8, 1910, was equivalent to an added tonnage under the original speci¬ 
fications of 8,091. On the basis of 53,943 tons, at $12.03 per ton, it 
would have cost to fabricate the lock-gate material $648,934.29; 
$97,339.29 added to this would make the total cost $746,273.58. This 
divided by 53,943 tons would give $13.84 as the shop cost of manu¬ 
facturing the lock-gate material under the original specifications 
when increased by the extra work placed in the shop under the 
agreement of August 8, 1910, on the assumption that the lock-gate 
material was as difficult to manufacture under the original specifi¬ 
cations as other material passing through shop No. 2 for the period 
from December, 1909, to November, 1910, and from February, 1913, 
to January, 1914, inclusive. 


96 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


The evidence shows that special tools and equipment to the value 
of $52,488.94 were purchased for use of the shop in the manufacture 
of the material for the lock gates. This charge represents only the 
proportion of the cost of these tools and equipment charged to the 
lock-gate contract. (See par. 6 of letter from Mr. W. M. Sterrett, 
manager McClintic-Marshall Construction Co., dated Apr. 1, 1915, 
General Exhibit 26, vol. 26.) This expense seems to be an expense 
that it became necessary for the McClintic-Marshall Construction 
Co. to make by reason of the character of the lock-gate material. 
That this is so is shown by an anatysis of the charges for repairs and 
general expenses in the summary of general expenses furnished by 
the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. (See General Exhibit 
No. 27.) 

The total repairs for shops 1 and 2 for the period from December, 
1910, to January, 1913, inclusive, was $259,340.16. This divided 
by the total tonnage of these shops, 126,351 tons, would show the 
average expenditure for repairs in shops 1 and 2 during the lock- 
gate period to be $2.05 per ton. The total amount expended for 
repairs for the year immediately preceding and the year immediately 
succeeding the lock-gate period for shops 1 and 2 was $223,154.96. 
This divided by 156,561, the total tonnage for these two shops for 
the periods stated, would show an expenditure for repairs for shops 
1 and 2 of $1.42 per ton. If $1.42 a ton should be taken as the 
normal expenditure for repairs in shops 1 and 2 during the lock- 
gate period (though probably with the decreased output the unit 
cost of repairs would be appreciably higher), it would show an 
expenditure for repairs equal to 126,351 by $1.42, or a total of 
$179,418.42. This deducted from the actual expenditure, $259,340.16, 
would indicate an excess expenditure for repairs in shops 1 and 2 
for the period of the fabrication of the lock-gate material of 
$79,921.74. 

The conclusion, therefore, that the $52,488.94 represents an ex¬ 
penditure peculiar to the lock gates is justified. The cost of the 
lock-gate material would necessarily be increased by the amount of 
this expenditure independently of any requirements made by the 
Panama Canal, and if it was an expenditure which was required to 
be made on account of the peculiar character of the lock-gate ma¬ 
terial it should be charged as an extra expense for manufacturing 
the lock-gate material by reason of the inherent character of the 
material. The average cost per ton for this equipment was 97 cents. 
This sum, on the assumption that the equipment was required be¬ 
cause of the character of the lock-gate material as distinguished 
from the character of other material with which it is compared, 
should be added to the cost per ton for fabricating the lock-gate 
material. 

The evidence establishes the fact that it was necessary for the 
contractor to purchase this equipment and these repairs to properly 
equip his shop for the manufacture of the lock-gate material under 
the original specifications. 

The special equipment purchased at the beginning of the contract 
and the credits allowed at the end of the contract are shown in the 
list given below: 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO 


97 


Panama shop equipment. 




Cost. 

Disposition. 

Equipment 62 

1 No. 9 Williams White bulldozer. 

89,975. 20 

Equipment $2,250. 

63 

1 36-foot plate planer. 

7,304.21 

Equipment. 

64 

1 duplex milling m^'Jiine. 

10,485.11 

Equipment $3,090. 

66 

Sand-blast machines. 

3, 724. 83 

Equipment $500. 

70 

Furnace for heating corner plate for Panama. 

881.16 

Equipment $600. 

71 

Triple bolt cutter with milling head. 

1,333.03 

* Do. 

73 

Dust arrester, sand elevator and separator. 

2,208.52 

74 

1 2-inch bolt pointer with bushings and cutters for 
Panama work. 

284.05 

Equipment. 

75 

1 air grinder for Panama work. 

159. 50 


76 

Electric welding layout. 

174.47 


77 

2 magnetic gogs for beam punches. 

8 air jacks for new and old planer. 

268. 24 


78 

348.30 

Equipment $140. 

79 

1 single tree, tons, Panama. 

2-inch triple bolt cutter with milling attachment... 

77. 94 

80 

1,442.50 

Equipment $600. 

81 

1 20-foot Niles planer. 

3,121. 10 

Equipment $900. 

82 

3 48-inch rotary planers, Panama. 

8, 227. 20 

Equipment $4,000. 

86 

Additional sand-blast machine, fan motor, 
Panama. 

753.36 

87 

36-inch Pond planer, Panama. 

3, 732. 43 

Equipment. 

88 

8-foot Hilles-Jones bending roll, Panama. 

3,030. 33 

Equipment $1,350. 

89 

1-foot light balance beam, Panama. 

74. 48 

Improvement 58 

Shear attachment for No. 6 lattice punch. 

1,265.27 


59 

Blacksmith shop in stock shed. 

1,996.07 


60 

Punch die for manhole, Panama. 

115. 79 

Equipment. 

61 

Remodeling beam crane over new bulldozer. 

180.27 

62 

Changing spacing table, No. 2 shop. 

1,294.00 


64 

Coping attachment for shear, No. 2 shop, Panama. 

207. 09 


65 

2 cast-iron dies for bulldozer, Panama. 

1,130.49 


67 

Rocks for painting plate, No. 2 yard. 

91.19 


Special 19 

Castings for facing ends of girders, Panama. 

_ CHARGE. 

1,269. 43 

$65,155.64. 

4845 

Shop equipment. 

Equipment. 

40,379.16 
24,776. 48 

65,155. 64 



Special No. 22. 


Bushings_ $923.16 

Bulldozer dies_ 590. 06 

Checking holes_ 1, 705.18 

Clamp for duplex milling_ 42. 53 

Gauge for water-tight frame_ 100. 55 

Head for facing nut_ 307. 03 

Templet_ 1, 932. 89 

Jigs_ 950. 45 

Moving reamers_ 293. 56 

Packing for reamers_ 222. 82 

Jib crane_ 52. 31 

Scaffold for assembling gates_ 91. 56 

Gauge for rivet dies_ 44. 07 

Skids in yards_ 1, 343. 93 

Table for plate-milling machine_ 278. 63 

Dies, water-tight frame- 833.15 

Clamp for fitting girder- 220. 00 

Office furniture_ 221. 65 

Electric welding_ 238. 95 

Expense getting men- 625. 75 

Miscellaneous rivet tests, tapes, etc- 253. 22 

Portable house_ 80. 68 


11, 352,13 

Charge 4845, shop equipment. 

The above statements relative to shop equipment for fabricating 
material under item 1 at Rankin shops were obtained from the ex¬ 
amination of the books of the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. 


29249°—H. Doc. 906, 64-1-7 


































































98 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


April 21, 1915, and appears in General Exhibit 27, volume 27 of the 
evidence. Mr. Patterson, the auditor of the McClintic-Marshall Con¬ 
struction Co., stated that the amounts shown as u Cost ” represent the 
amounts paid for the various items which were purchased at the time 
the contract was begun. The column headed “ Disposition ” repre¬ 
sents the value of this equipment at the close of the contract accord¬ 
ing to the estimate of the Contractor. The original cost of the 
machinery was verified from the vouchers covering the payments for 
these items as shown on the books. 

The testimony of Mr. C. M. Neeld, who was the manager of the 
McClintic-Marshall Construction Co.’s shops from the time the work 
started until June 1, 1911, General Exhibit No. 23, volume 23 of the 
testimony, pages 6 and 7, shows that he suggested that many of the 
tools and equipments be purchased to properly equip the shops. 
Among the particular tools are the following: 

A tool for planing the ends of the girders to overcome the planing 
in the field. 

Two vertical milling machines. 

One bulldozer. 

All of the above were considered as extra shop equipment. 

On page 7 he also refers to steel templets and the largely increased 
blacksmith facilities that it was necessary to adopt to make the 
water-tight frames, also incidental punches, special large punches, 
special foundations for assembling the gates, and sandblast and 
pickling plant. 

From an examination of the departmental shop cost of the McClin¬ 
tic-Marshall Construction Co. it appears that the sandblast and 
pickling plant might be considered as special equipment peculiar to 
the lock gates, also the special large punches for the punching of 
circles and punching holes in the manhole frames for the gates. 

On items 3 to 9, inclusive, of the contract and on items 10A, 10B, 
15, 16, 17, and 18 castings were purchased as follows: 


Pounds. 

Item 3_ 1, 201,130 

Item 4_ 770, 932 

Item 5_ 8,206,758 

Item 6_ 192,950 

Item 7_ 302,190 

Item 8_ 28, 770 

Item 9- 259, 986 

Item 10A_ 348,537 

Item 10B_ 20,132 

Item 15_ 23,541 

Item 16_ 813,697 

Item 17_ 149,156 

Item 18_ 11.126 


Total castings_ 12, 328,905 


On item 11 babbitt metal was purchased to the amount of 778,297 
pounds. 

None of this material, amounting to 6,553 tons, has been carried 
into the tonnage as output of shops Nos. 1 or 2. Administrative ex¬ 
penditures, however, in connection with this material were incurred 
to the amount of $14,658.56. This divided by 53,943 tons would show 
an administrative expenditure in connection with this material of 27 

















McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 99 

cents per ton when applied to the tonnage of the lock-gate material 
passing through shop No. 2. 

It will be noted that about 10 per cent of all the lock-gate material 
was castings. The administrative expenses in connection with this 
material, owing to the great amount of it compared with the material 
that went through the shops and on which the tonnage price for 
fabricating is based, it seems should be considered as an expense 
peculiar to the lock-gate material. The 27 cents should, therefore, 
be added to the price of fabricating the lock-gate material as an 
expenditure peculiar to the conditions under which the material was 
fabricated, and not ordinary and usual in connection with the fabri¬ 
cation of other material with which it is compared. 

Another special feature that would affect the cost of fabricating 
the lock-gate material was the requirement that one complete leaf of 
each different height included in the contract should be assembled and 
bolted together, and each piece in the leaves match marked to facili¬ 
tate reassembly. The details of this operation are shown in para¬ 
graph 120 of the specifications, which provides as follows: 

In order to detect any errors in the templets, etc., the Contractor shall erect 
at his works, without charge, one complete leaf of each different height in¬ 
cluded in his contract. Such leaves shall be carefully assembled and bolted 
together, but are not to be riveted up nor have the rivet and bolt holes reamed. 
Each piece in these leaves shall be match marked, so as to facilitate reassem¬ 
bling. All other leaves of the same height shall be built from the same templets 
but need not be erected in the shops. Any errors- in the templets or elsewhere 
found during the shop erection must be corrected in all leaves. 

The expenses incurred in complying with this provision of the 
specifications w T ere not kept separately, but were included as a part 
of the expenses applied to the different operations, as shown in detail 
in the analysis of the departmental shop cost made by the McClintic- 
Marshall Construction Co., as shown in General Exhibit No. 26. It 
has been estimated, however, that it would cost to assemble one leaf, 
complete, $1,200. 

The assembly of the 82-foot leaf, the 66-foot leaf, and the 77-foot 
10-inch leaf, in so far as the latter leaf was a duplicate of the 77-foot 
leaf, was waived. It does not appear, therefore, that more than four 
leaves were completely assembled in the yards of the Contractor. 

There were seven different heights of leaves, and if one leaf of each 
height had been assembled, as provided for under the original speci¬ 
fications, the cost for complying with this requirement would have 
been $8,400, or 15 cents per ton. This work, however, was provided 
for under the original specifications, and no separate and distinct 
charge will, therefore, be made at this time to cover this expenditure 
as peculiar to the lock-gate material, but it will be taken into consid¬ 
eration in comparing the difficulties of manufacturing the lock-gate 
material with other material passing through shop 2 for the periods 
from December, 1909, to November, 1910, inclusive, and from Feb¬ 
ruary, 1913, to January, 1914, inclusive. 

On the assumption that, under the original specifications, the lock- 
gate material was as difficult to manufacture as other material pass¬ 
ing through shop 2 for the period with which it was compared, and 
adding the tonnage price of the extra work, the tonnage price of 
equipment and tools peculiar to the lock gates, and the tonnage price 


100 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


of the general expenses in connection with the purchase of the large 
amount of castings for the lock gates, we would have the following 
results as to the cost of fabricating the lock-gate material, independ¬ 
ently of any unreasonable requirements made by the Isthmian Canal 
Commission: 

Per ton. 

Cost under original specifications, assuming it is as difficult to manufac¬ 
ture as other material passing through shop 2 for the period from De¬ 


cember, 1909, to November, 1910, inclusive, and from February, 1913, 

to January, 1914, inclusive_ $12. 03 

Extra work and expenses added by the agreement of Aug. 8, 1910, and 

other changes_ 1. 80 

Expenditures for equipment and tools due to the inherent character of 

the lock-gate material_ . 97 

General expenses in connection with the purchase of a large amount of 
castings not ordinarily required in structural steelwork_ . 27 


Total_ 15. 07 


The actual price of fabricating the lock-gate material, if the aver¬ 
age conditions had existed in shop 1 during the lock-gate period, and 
if there had been no breakdowns in the power house of shop 2 during 
the lock-gate period, on a general expense of 1.036 per cent of shop 
labor, has been established at $16.90 a ton. The difference between 
$16.90 and $15.07 per ton is $1.83. This difference, under any view 
of the case, may be fairly considered as excess cost due to any or all 
of the following causes:- 

First. The inherent character of the lock-gate material and the 
difficulties of manufacturing it. 

Second. Any excessive demands, unreasonable requirements and 
delays, and interruptions in the manufacture on the part of the Isth¬ 
mian Canal Commission. 

Third. Any lack of experience on the part of the Contractor with 
water-tight work and special character of work required in fabri¬ 
cating the lock gates. 

These causes, as they may have affected the price, will now be con¬ 
sidered. 

The Contractor claims that the lock-gate material should have 
been fabricated, as it was finally turned out of the shops at an aver¬ 
age cost of $2 a ton less than the average cost of all the work turned 
out of shop 2 for the year preceding and the year succeeding the 
lock-gate period, for the reason that there was so much duplication 
in the work and such a large proportion of the work simply punched 
and drilled without being assembled or riveted. He claims that the 
entire increase in cost of fabrication was due to delay in furnishing 
the Contractor the necessary data, unfair demands of the Commit 
sion’s engineers, and unreasonable shop inspection. (See p. 68 of 
the claim.) 

The contention of the Contractor that the work should have been 
manufactured for $2 per ton less than all other work turned out of 
shop 2 for the year preceding and the year succeeding the fabrica¬ 
tion of the lock-gate material will be first considered. 

The total number of members required for the lock gates on the 
92 leaves, and whether such members were drilled or punched, is 
shown in the following table: 








McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO 


101 


[W. O. 23444.] 

Total number of members required for lock gates, 92 leaves. 

[Contractor’s order Nos. 4845, 4847, 4849, 4851, 4853, 4853, 4857, 4857J, 4859, 4861, 4863, 4865, 4867.] 


Members. 

Mark. 

Total 

number. 

Shop riveted. 

Girders. 

G 

1,540 

2,804 

2,804 

2,544 

Riveted. 

Diaphragms. 

A 

Do. 

Po. 

B 

Do. 

Diaphragms, water-tight. 

WF 

Do. 

Diaphragms, nonwater-tight. 

CF 

4j 696 
1,848 

Do. 

Doubling plates. 

DP 

Punched and drilled. 

Bent plates. 

BP 

1,960 

Riveted. 

Sheathing plates, upstream. 

u 

4,344 

Punched and drilled. 

Sheathing plates, downstream. 

D 

3'080 

Do. 

Cover plates. 

C 

3,432 
92 

Do. 

Diaphragms, water-tight. 

WB 

Riveted. 

Intercostals. 

K 

61,000 

Do. 

Wedges. 

w 

5, 424 

7, 736 
8,872 

Punched and drilled. 

Splice plates. 

SP 

Do. 

Do. 

S 

Do. 

Fillers. 

F 

31’604 

Do. 

Do. 

FN 

'504 

Do. 

Miscellaneous loose pieces. 

M 

4,048 

8,664 

2,348 

92 

Do. 

Footwalk frames, etc. 

FW 

Riveted. 

Ladders. 

L 

Do. 

Upper jaw. 

J-l 

Do. 

Jaw supports. 

J-2-3-4 

276 

Do. 




159,712 



The following table gives the same information as to the members 
required for spare parts: 


[W. O. 23444.] 


Total number of members required for spare parts 

[Contractor's order No. 4873.] 


Members. 

Mark. 

Total 

number. 

Shop riveted. 

irrl pr<; . 

G 

42 

Riveted. 

Tlianbra^ms 

A 

110 

Do. 


B 

110 

Do. 

Tl lQi-vVirQ crm<? wafpr-tiuh t . 

WF 

96 

Do. 

HionbrooTTK nnn wnt.pr-f.iirht,.. 

CF 

168 

Do. 


DP 

154 

Punched or drilled. 


BP 

172 

Riveted. 

cVioatnincr rdnfp nnst.rp.am 

U 

282 

Punched or drilled. 

fiVioa thine? rdnt P downstream . 

D 

192 

Do. 


C 

136 

Do. 


WB 

2 

Riveted. 


K 

2,170 

Do. 


W 

282 

Punched or drilled. 


SP 

274 

Do. 

Do . 

s 

354 

Do. 


F 

1,278 

Punched. 

£>o . 

FN 

28 

Do. 


M 

101 

Punched or drilled. 


FW 

168 

Riveted. 


L 

74 

Do. 


J-l 

2 

Do. 


J-2-3-4 

6 

Do. 







6,101 



This table is a concrete illustration as to the amount of duplica¬ 
tion in the work. It also gives pretty much in detail the character 
of the material, as to whether it is riveted, punched and drilled, or 
merely punched. 


































































102 


McCLINTIC-MAKSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


In the testimony of Mr. Henry Goldmark, general exhibit No. 8, 
volume No. 8, exhibit No. 4 of this testimony, there is a classification 
of weights on one 77-foot leaf, item 1, giving the description of the 
member, the weight, percentage of total, percentage punched, per¬ 
centage drilled, and percentage riveted. This table was prepared by 
Mr. Wolfel, and, for easy reference, is quoted below: 


Classification of weights for one 77-foot leaf, item No. 1. 


Description. 

W eight. 

Per cent. 

Per cert 
punched. 

Per cent 
drilled. 

Per cent 
riveted. 

G irders. 

455,459 

76,528 

37.50 

37.50 

0 

37.50 

Diaphragms A. 

6.29 

3.07 

3.22 

6.29 

Diaphragms R . . 

19,010 

54,596 

1.56 

1.56 

0 

1.56 

Nonwater-tight frames. 

4.51 

4.51 

0 

4.51 

W ater-tight frames. 

40,817 
69,246 
26,118 
255,537 
65,468 
30,498 

3.35 

3.18 

.17 

3.35 

Tnt.arcnst.als . 

5.83 

5.83 

0 

5.83 

Rant, plates . 

2.14 

2.14 

0 

1.48 

Sheathing plates... 

21.04 

12.04 

9.00 

0 

Cover dates. 

5.38 

5.38 

0 

0 

Doubling plates.-... 

2.50 

2.50 

0 

0 

Splice plates... 

19,361 
7,842 
58,546 
9,128 

1.60 

1.60 

0 

0 

Wedges. 

.64 

.64 

0 

0 

Rivets... 

4.81 

0 

0 

0 

Fillers. 

.75 

.75 

0 

0 

Miscellaneous._._. 

25,549 

2.10 

2.10 

0 

0 



Total. 

1,214,003 

100.00 

82.80 

12.39 

60.52 



Per cent. 


Punched work. 82.80 

Drilled work. 12.39 

Field rivets. 4.81 


100.00 


Per cent. 


Riveted work. 60.52 

Not riveted. 34.67 

Field rivets. 4.81 


100.00 


The percentages given are approximately correct, but the entire 
amount of the bent plates should be classed as riveted material, 
making a change in the totals of the percentage riveted and the 
percentage not riveted. This change made in the percentage of 
riveted work gives 61.18 per cent as riveted work. 

Applying the above percentages to a tonnage of 53,943, which is 
heretofore shown as the amount of material on which the depart¬ 
mental shop cost and general expenses are based, the weights of the 


different classes of material are as follows: 

Tons. 

Girders_ 20, 228 

Diaphragms A-^_ 3, 393 

Diaphragms B- 842 

Non water-tight frames_ 2, 433 

Water-tights_ 1, 807 

Intercostals_ 3,146 

Bent plates--- 1,154 

Sheathing plates-11, 350 

Cover plates_ 2, 902 

Doubling plates_ 1, 349 

Splice plates_ 863 

Wedges_ 345 

Itivets- 2, 595 

Fillers- 405 

Miscellaneous- 1,133 


On October 4, 1915, the claimant made an estimate of the depart¬ 
mental shop cost of a 77-foot leaf, classified in accordance with the 
different kinds of material. This estimated cost is given below: 



















































McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


103 


Cost estimate of 77-foot leaf of class of work. 


Girders. 

Diaphragm A. 

Diaphragm B. 

Nonwater-tight frames 

Water-tight frames_ 

Intercostals. 

Bent plates. 

Sheathing plates. 

Cover plates. 

Doubling plates. 

Splice plates. 

Wedges. 

Rivets. 

Fillers. 

Miscellaneous. 

Total. 


Classification. 


Per cent, 
of total. 

Esti- . 
mated 
unit 
manu¬ 
facturing 
cost. 

Product. 

37.50 

$0.33 

$12.37 

6.29 

.50 

3.14 

1.56 

.40 

.62 

4.51 

.30 

1.35 

3.35 

.70 

2.35 

5.83 

.30 

1.75 

2.14 

.40 

.86 

21.04 

.10 

2.10 

5.38 

.15 

.81 

2.50 

.20 

.50 

1.60 

.15 

.24 

.64 

1.00 

.64 

4.81 

.08 

.38 

.75 

.20 

.15 

2.10 

.25 

.53 

100.00 

.278 

27.79 


Average cost, 0.278 cents, or $5.56 a ton. 


On the basis of this estimate of the departmental shop cost, in¬ 
creased by 91.3 per cent to cover a general expense equal to the gen¬ 
eral expense for the period from December, 1909, to November, 1910, 
inclusive, and from February, 1913, to January, 1914, inclusive, the 
various members of the lock-gate material would have cost to fabri¬ 
cate the amounts shown in the table below (see p. 47) : 


Members. 

Total 

weight. 

Cost per 
ton on 
estimate. 

Total. 

Girders . 

Tons. 

20,227 

3,393 

842 

$12.63 
19.13 

$255,467.01 
64,908.09 
12,882.60 

Diaphragm A. 

Diaphragm B ... 

15.30 

Nonwater-tight frames. 

2,433 

11.47 

27,906.51 
48,572.16 
36,084.62 

Water-tight frames. 

1,807 

26.88 

Intercostals ........................_...... 

3,146 
1,154 

11.47 

Bent plates ... 

15.30 

17,656.20 
43,470.50 
16,657. 48 

Sheathing plates. 

11,350 

2,902 

1,348 

863 

3.83 

Cover plates ...... 

5.74 

Doubling plates. 

7.65 

10,312.20 
4,953.62 
13,199.60 

Splice plates... 

5.74 

Wedges . 

345 

38.26 

Rivets . 

2,585 

405 

3.06 

7,940.70 
3,098.25 
10,842.81 


7.65 

Miscellaneous...... 

1,133 

9.57 


Total .. 

53,943 


573,952.35 




The above estimate is considerably in excess of the original esti¬ 
mate of the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. upon which their 
bid was made. This original estimate is attached and made a part of 
the testimony of Mr. C. D. Marshall, General Exhibit No. 11, volume 
No. 11. The total finished weight of the material paid for under 
item 1 for the original 92 gates and spare parts was 106,963,929 
pounds, or 53,482 tons, approximately. Upon this basis the manu¬ 
facture of item 1 of the gates and spare parts, including the sand 
blast and pickling, would have cost, under Mr. Marshall’s estimate, 
$288,802. The general expenses under Mr. Marshall’s estimate 


















































104 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


amounted to $224,424. The expense of manufacturing this item of 
gates and spare parts, including sand blast and pickling, according 
to the statement made up by the Contractor, amounted to $486,161; 
and the general expenses, including administrative expense, $420,- 
546; making the total departmental shop cost and general expenses 
$906,707. 

The difference between the amount of the departmental shop cost 
and the general expenses, as shown by this statement and as hereto¬ 
fore found, is due to the fact that in making up this statement the 
$52,488.44 for miscellaneous shop equipment was not included; neither 
are certain administrative expenses included in this statement which 
have been included in the findings heretofore made.' The purpose of 
referring to this statement at the present time is to show how widely 
different is the actual expense of manufacturing this material from 
the estimate as made by the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. 
The facts do show, as claimed by the Contractor, that there was much 
duplication in the work, and that a considerable proportion of the 
work was simply punched and drilled without being assembled or 
riveted. 

There are, however, other elements that enter into the cost of this 
work probably to a greater extent than the work with which it is 
compared that should be taken into consideration. A detailed com¬ 
parison of the shop cost of this work with the shop cost of other work 
passing through shop 2 for the periods named is shown in the fol¬ 
lowing table, made up from the records of the departmental shop 
cost furnished bv the claimant. (See General Exhibit No. 26, vol. 
No. 26.) 


Depart¬ 
mental 
shop cost 
of all 
material 


Depart¬ 
mental 
shop cost 
of lock-gate 
material 


No. 


shop 2, 
1909 to 1910, 
inclusive, 


and 1913 
to 1914, 
inclusive, 


combined. 


passing 
through 
shop 2, 
December, 
1909, to 
January, 
1913, 

inclusive. 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


Making templates. 

Making patterns. 

Unloading. 

Plate straightening. 

Running in. 

Stockyard (lock-gate welding and duplex milling). 

Shearing. 

Laying off.. 

Trucking in Department L. O. & P. 

Punching. 

Punching cont. washers. 

Drilling. 

Milling (lock-gate pickling). 

Edge planing. 

Bending and straightening. 

Fitting. 

Trucking in F. & R. departments. 

Making jigs. 

Reaming. 

Subpunched reaming. 

Countersinking (lock-gate bulldozer). 

Machine riveting. 

Hand riveting. 

Cut-out and redrive rivets (lock-gate sand-blast).. 
Rotary planing. 


$0.2773 

.0115 

.1191 

.0441 

.1187 

.0400 

.2174 

.3110 

.1241 

.6074 


.1038 

.0010 

.0260 

.0341 

1.1444 

.1177 

.0002 

.2441 

.3470 


.7180 

.2614 


.1096 


$0.0927 
.0009 
.1275 
.0629 
.1021 
.0590 
.2491 
.4209 
.1462 


.2020 

.1171 

.2277 


1.3177 

.1540 

.0139 

.1055 

.9440 

.1185 

.6111 

.0292 

.2410 

.2704 


Excess for 
all 

material 
passing 
through 
shop 2, 
1909 to 1910, 
inclusive, 
and 1913 
to 1914, 
inclusive. 


$0.1846 
.0106 


.0166 



.1069 

.2322 


Excess for 
lock-gate 
material 
passing 
through 
shop 2, 
December, 
1910, to 
January, 
1913, 

inclusive. 


$0 


0084 

0188 


0190 

0317 

099 

0121 


0027 


161 

2017 

0239 

733 

0363 

0137 


5970 

185 


2410 

608 



























































McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


105 


No. 


Depart¬ 
mental 
shop cost 
of all 
material 
passing 
through 
shop 2, 
1909 to 1910, 
inclusive, 
and 1913 
to 1914, 
inclusive, 
combined. 


Depart¬ 
mental 
shop cost 
oflock-gate 
material 
passing 
through 
shop 2, 
December, 
1909, to 
January, 
1913,' 
inclusive. 


Excess for 
all 

material 


Excess for 
lock-gate 
material 


passing 
through 
shop 2, 
1909 to 1910, 
inclusive, 
and 1913 
to 1914, 
inclusive. 


passing 
through 
shop 2, 
December, 
1910, to 
January, 
1913, 

inclusive. 


26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 


Boring. 

Calking and riveting ladders. 

Grinding. 

Chipping. 

Blacksmith shop. 

Machine shop. 

Running out. 

Storing. 

Loading and bracing. 

Indirect labor. 

Painting. 


$0.0141 


.0753 

.1607 

.1537 

.1176 

.0014 

.1270 

.4328 

.1820 


$0.0086 

.0333 

.0162 

.2643 

.7689 

.2002 

.1948 

.0016 


.2073 


$0.0055 . 

. $0.0333 

. .0162 

.. . 1890 

.. .6082 

. .0465 

.. .0772 

. .0002 

. .1310 

.0763 . 

. .0253 


6.2425 


8.7900 


Add for pickling, bulldozer, and sand-blast, to 
cover small charges of this kind. 

Total. 



6.2516 


A complete detail of the departmental shop cost, showing a com¬ 
parative analysis of shop cost from December, 1909, to February, 
1914, inclusive, with totals, rates per ton, periods covered, and the- 
lock-gate material segregated from other material passing through 
shop 2 for the period from December, 1910, to January, 1913, in¬ 
clusive, as taken from the departmental shop-cost records of the 
McClintic-Marshall Construction Co., Exhibit No. 26, volume 26, 
is attached hereto for ready reference. 

Referring to the tables on pages 45, 46, and 47, it appears that the 
total amount of riveted material given under the headings of girders, 
diaphragms A, diaphragms B, nonwater-tight frames, water-tight 
frames, intercostals, and bent plates, is 33,002 tons, and that the total 
cost of fabricating such material under the estimate of cost given on 
page 45 would be $463,477.19, making the average cost per ton for 
fabricating such material $14,043. It also appears that the material 
listed in the estimate as drilled or punched under the headings of 
sheathing plates, cover plates, doubling plates, wedges, rivets, fillers, 
and miscellaneous equals 20,641 tons, and that it cost to fabricate 
the same, at the unit cost arrived at, as shown on page 47, $110,475.16. 
The total cost per ton for fabricating this material under the esti¬ 
mate would be $5.35 per ton. The general average price of fabricat¬ 
ing all of the material under the estimate would be $10.64 per ton. 

The total number of field rivets for the lock gates, as shown by the 
computation made by Mr. Hammer, completed under date of Feb¬ 
ruary 21, 1913 (see Exhibit No. 1 of the testimony of Mr. Thomas 
Conley, found in General Exhibit No. 22, vol. No. 22), is as follows: 


Rivets. 

In skeleton_ 1,169, 760 

In upstream sheathing- 2, 382, 680 

In downstream sheathing-:-2, 021,160 

Reaction castings and wedges- 153, 880 


Total_ 5, 727, 480 















































106 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


In analyzing the estimate as to cost with a view to determining 
in what particulars it is inaccurate, it will be necessary to compare 
the estimated shopcost with the total shopcost of the various opera¬ 
tions, against which the departmental shopcost is charged, as shown 
on page 49 of this brief and statement of facts. 

The total departmental shopcost and general expenses under the 
estimate for the sheathing plates is $3.83 per ton. The most im¬ 
portant operations which must be performed on the sheathing plates 
in the shop are: Pickling, edge planing, laying off, punching, cham¬ 
fering edges, preparing plates for shipment. 

Some expense in connection with the sheathing plates would be 
incurred under each of the following operations mentioned in the 
departmental shopcost: Making templets, unloading, plate straight¬ 
ening, running it, shearing, laying off, trucking in department 
L. O. and P., punching, drilling, pickling, edge planing, fitting, 
trucking in F. and R. departments, running out, loading and bracing, 
indirect labor, painting. 

As shown above (p. 50) there were 4,403,840 field rivets in the 
sheathing. This necessitated the punching of a very large number 
of holes, considerably over 400 to the ton in the material that was 
involved. The accuracy with which this was required to be done, 
in order that the holes might clean up probably when reamed out in 
the field, and in order that the work, when assembled, might fit up 
accurately in the field, necessarily tended to increase the cost of 
punching and the related operations much beyond the average. 

It also appears that it was necessary, in order to comply with 
paragraph 21 of the agreement of August 8, 1910, to chamfer the 
edges of 2,472 sheathing plates at an estimated cost of $1.60 apiece, 
or $3,955. This would further increase the departmental shopcost 
of the sheathing plates. (See estimate of expenses in connection 
with the changes under the agreement of Aug. 8, 1910, made by 
Mr. R. A. Pendergrass, Apr. 30, 1915, and found in General Ex¬ 
hibit No. 27, vol. 27 of the evidence.) 

It also appears that under paragraph 2 of the agreement of August 
8, 1910, that the Contractor was compelled to incur an additional 
labor charge of almost $3 a ton on 1,961 tons in order to ship the 
sheathing plates as required therein. This would also tend to in¬ 
crease the departmental shop cost of the sheathing plates. 

The estimate of the departmental shop cost of the sheathing plates 
seems to be unreasonably low. This statement also applies, though 
in a less degree, to the cover plates. 

In the estimate made by Mr. Pendergrass, as referred to on page 3 
of this estimate, copy of which is attached to this report for ready 
reference, the average cost of shop work for fillers is fixed at 90 cents 
per hundredweight, or $18 per ton, as against the estimated charge 
of $7.65 a ton, as shown on page 47. 

An examination of the books of the McClintic-Marshall Construc¬ 
tion Co. discloses the fact that the charge placed against the contract 
for the manufacture of the rivets was 35 cents a hundred, or $7 a 
ton. The departmental shop cost and general expenses for the rivets 
under the estimate was only $3.06 a ton. It seems, therefore, that 
this estimated price is entirely too low. 

The estimate as a whole seems to be too low and will be considered 
in detail hereinafter. (See table, beginning on p. 202 of Miis report.) 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


107 


Mr. Goldmark states in his report, page 27, General Exhibit No. 1, 
vol. 1 (see also his testimony, p. 53, General Exhibit No. 8), that— 

I agree with the Contractor that it would have seemed reasonable to expect 
shop costs no higher than on high-grade work for large bridges, especially as 
so large a proportion of the work was simply punched or drilled plates. 

Mr. Goldmark was asked the question: 

In view of your recent study of the lock-gate work and its comparison with 
bridge work and high-class structural work, do you think that that statement 
is accurate? 

Mr. Goldmark answered: 

Yes, sir; I think that statement is accurate. 

Mr. Goldmark was asked: 

You think, then, that the Contractor might reasonably base his calculations 
upon a shop cost for this work no higher than on high-grade work on large 
bridges? 

Mr. Goldmark answered: 

Well, I tried very hard to make it that way; and I think that these difficult 
special parts constituted a small proportion of this very big tonnage. I think 
the girders, many of the frames, intercostals, and especially those plates, after 
the shop plans were carefully worked out so that they had to go ahead and 
build them over and over again—I always looked for a low shop cost, and I 
should say not as high as in some of those great big bridges that have been 
built of late years. 

Mr. Goldmark admits, however, that the sand blast' and pickling 
were unusual requirements, also the assembly in the yard, but as to 
the assembly he does not think that that would be more expensive 
than like operations in bridge work. 

If we compare the lock-gate material with the high-grade bridge 
work that was passed through shop 2 for the year immediately suc¬ 
ceeding the fabrication of the lock-gate material, and give full 
credit to Mr. Goldmark as an expert and as being fully conversant 
with all features of its fabrication, and also give credit to his state¬ 
ment made after a careful study of the various features that might 
affect the shop cost of the lock-gate material as compared with other 
material, we would be bound to conclude that the lock-gate material 
should not have cost more than $13.45 a ton to fabricate under normal 
conditions, and as compared with the fabrication of other material 
passing through shop 2 for the period of February, 1913, to Janu¬ 
ary, 1914, inclusive. (See testimony of Mr. Goldmark, beginning on 
p/45 and extending to p. 63, General Exhibit No. 8, vol. 8 of the 
testimony.) 

Upon the same basis, with normal and usual conditions prevailing, 
the lock-gate material should not have cost more than $12.03 a ton 
as compared with all material passing through shop 2 for the periods 
from December. 1909, to November. 1910, inclusive, and from Feb¬ 
ruary, 1913, to January, 1914, inclusive. 

The evidence does not show, however, that Mr. Goldmark care¬ 
fully and accurately analyzed the probable shop cost of the lock- 
gate material as compared with the departmental-shop cost of high- 
grade bridge work; neither does it show that Mr. Goldmark at any 
time took into consideration fully the amount of the increase in 
shop cost that was made by the agreement of August 8, 1910, and 
subsequent agreements made by his authority through Mr. Hammer. 


108 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


It is the opinion of your committee that, in view of all the evidence, 
the lock-gate material, under normal and ordinary conditions and 
usual and ordinary inspection under the original specifications, 
should have cost as much as the average cost of all material passing 
through shop No. 2 for the periods from December, 1909, to January, 
1910, inclusive, and from February, 1913, to January, 1914, inclusive, 
or $12.03 a ton under the original specifications. 

To this should be added $1.80 a ton to cover the increased depart¬ 
mental-shop cost added to the original specifications by the agree¬ 
ment of August 8, 1910, and subsequent agreements made in the 
specifications, by Mr. Hammer under authority of Mr. Goldmark, in 
the manner in which the work was fabricated. 

The expenditure for equipment and tools, due to the inherent 
character of the lock-gate material, appears to have been greatly in 
excess of any like expenditures for the manufacture of material pass¬ 
ing through shop No. 2 for the year immediately preceding and the 
year immediately succeeding the fabrication of the lock-gate ma¬ 
terial. The amount of this excess expenditure for equipment and 
tools, due to the inherent character of the lock-gate material, as 
heretofore shown, was equal to 97 cents a ton. This should be ad¬ 
ded to the cost of fabricating the lock-gate material under the origi¬ 
nal specifications as an excess in the general expenses, due to the 
inherent character of the lock-gate material, not comparable with 
any like expenditure. 

The general expenses incurred in connection with the puschase of 
a large amount of castings, are expenses that a contractor is not 
ordinarily required to incur in structural steel work, at least not 
to the extent that it was necessary to incur these expenses in connec¬ 
tion with the fabrication of the lock-gate material, and as they have 
been charged as a part of the general expenses per ton of the struc¬ 
tural-steel material passing through shop 2 during the lock-gate 
period, they should be added to the price fixed for fabricating the 
lock-gate material. These sums added together would make the 
cost of fabricating the lock-gate material under ordinary and normal 
conditions and ordinary and usual inspection, such as might have 
been anticipated under the original specifications—$15.07 a ton. To 
this should be added 69 cents a ton to cover the increase in the gen¬ 
eral expenses in shop 2, due to a reduction in the output of shop 1 
for the lock-gate period. A further sum of 30 cents a ton should be 
added to cover the increase in departmental-shop cost and general 
expenses occasioned by breakdowns in the power house of the Con¬ 
tractor. These two sums when added to the price per ton heretofore 
found—$15.07—would make the total cost of fabricating the lock- 
gate material, independently of any excessive demands of inspec¬ 
tors—$16.06 a ton. 

The total cost per ton as shown was $17.89. The difference, in the 
opinion of your committee, was probably due to abnormal conditions 
such as excessive demands, unreasonable requirements, delays, and 
interruptions in the manufacture on the part of the Isthmian Canal 
Commission, or lack of experience on the part of the Contractor in 
fabricating the water-tight work and work of the special character 
required in the lock gates. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


109 


In tabulated form the normal cost of fabricating the lock-gate 
material would have been as follows: 


Cost per 
ton. 


Cost under original specifications_$12. 03 

Add for increased expenses caused by the Goldmark agreement of Aug. 

8, 1910_ 1. 80 

Add for special equipment and tools not common to the class of material 

with which the lock-gate material is compared_ . 97 

Add for general expenses on account of purchasing a larger number of 

castings than is ordinarily required for other material_ . 27 

Add for increase in general expenses in shop 2, on account of the reduced 

output of shop 1 for the lock-gate period_ . 69 

Add for increased general expenses and departmental shop cost, due to 

reduced output of shop 2 on account of breakdowns in power house_ . 30 


16. 06 

The item of $1.80 added for increased expenses caused by the 
Goldmark agreement of August 8, 1910, includes any excess cost 
that might have been due to unreasonable inspection, and in the final 
statement will have to be reduced by the percentage of such excess 
cost as is found to be due to unreasonable inspection and require¬ 
ments in excess of the specifications made by the Isthmian Canal 
Commission. 

The departmental shop cost and labor cost for item 1 alone was 
$471,242.64. The general and administrative expenses charged 
against this item were $420,546.05, making the total charge of the 
departmental shop cost and administrative expenses on item 1, 
$891,788.69. The total amount of material paid for under item 1 was 
106,963,927 pounds, or 53,482 tons; $891,788.69 divided by 53,482 
would give a tonnage price for departmental shop cost and general 
expenses of fabricating material for item 1 of $16.67. This does not 
include $52,488.94 expended for special tools and equipment, nor 
does it include $17,443.83 expended for general and administrative 
expenses in connection with other items of the contract. It does not 
include $2,918.90 manufacturing expenses on items 2, 3, and 4, which 
are carried into the computation as to the manufacturing cost of 
the material above shown on the basis of 53,943 tons. 

The price per ton as arrived at in this way ^s only 2 cents higher 
than the price arrived at on the basis of a tonnage of 53,943 and de¬ 
partmental shop cost of $474,161.54, after making the necessary 
deductions for special tools and equipment to cover the general and 
administrative expenses on castings. 

The above price per ton of the total expenses of item 1 is also in 
exact accord with a statement of the total cost of item 1 prepared by 
the Contractor and submitted to your committee, with the exception 
that in his preparation of the departmental shop cost of manufactur¬ 
ing item 1 and the spare parts for the gates a charge of $14,918.10 
for pickling material and plant is included. This should be ex¬ 
cluded as not a proper charge against the labor cost of the material 
nor a proper element entering into the general expenses when com¬ 
pared with other material. These two methods of arriving at the 
departmental shop cost and general and administrative expenses per 
ton produce so nearly the same result that it is apparent that the 
sums spent for special tools and equipment and the sum spent in con- 








110 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


nection with the general expenses for the purchasing of castings 
should not enter into the computation in determining the tonnage 
price at which the lock-gate material was manufactured for the pur¬ 
pose of comparing such price with the tonnage price of manufactur¬ 
ing other material for the year preceding and the year succeeding 
the lock-gate period. 

On the basis just stated as to item 1, the general and administrative 
expenses of fabricating the lock-gate material were 89.2 per cent of 
the departmental shop cost. 

The general and administrative expenses charged against item 1 
should be reduced by $36,902.58 to cover the 69 cents a ton increase in 
such expenses due to loss of output in shop 1 for the lock-gate period. 
When so reduced, the general and administrative expenses properly 
charged against this item, in comparing such expenses with other 
expenses against material passing through shop 2 for the year pre¬ 
ceding and the year succeeding the lock-gate period, would be 
$383,643.47; $383,643.47 is 81.4 per cent of $471,242.64, the total de¬ 
partmental shop cost and labor cost of item 1. This is a very low 
percentage of the departmental shop and labor cost for the general 
and administrative expenses. It is explained, however, by the fact 
that the departmental shop and labor cost is very high. The de¬ 
partmental shop and labor cost of item 1 is $8.81 per ton; 81.4 per 
cent of $8.81 would give the cost for general expenses as $7.17 per 
ton. On this basis the cost per ton would be $15.98, divided as fol¬ 
lows : Eight dollars and eighty-one cents for departmental shop labor 
cost and $7.17 as general and administrative expenses. The item of 
$1.80 per ton for expenses caused by the Goldmark agreement, and 
the 30 cents per ton to cover the increased expenses due to breakdowns 
in the power houses, should be deducted from the departmental shop 
cost and general expenses in the proportion above shown. Applying 
this proportion, 95 cents should be deducted from the cost per ton 
of general expenses, leaving the general expenses per ton, $6.22; 
and $1.15 a ton should be deducted from the departmental shop and 
labor cost, leaving that at $7.66 a ton; $7.66 plus $6.22 would make 
$13.88 a ton as the cost of fabricating the lock-gate material under 
the original specifications after making allowance for increased 
cost due to all causes other than the severity of inspection or unrea¬ 
sonable or excessive requirements of the Isthmian Canal Commission. 
Compared with the cost of fabricating all material passing through 
shop 2 for the year immediately preceding and the year immediately 
succeeding the lock-gate period, this cost is $1.85 a ton greater. 

Each of the methods stated above of arriving at the excess cost 
per ton due to abnormal conditions produce substantially the same 
result; i. e., in the first case there is an excess of $1.83 a ton, and in 
the second case, when the material on item 1 alone is considered, 
there is an excess of $1.85 a ton. 

As heretofore stated, this much of the excess cost is certainly due 
to the excessive demands, unreasonable requirements, delays, and in¬ 
terruptions in the manufacture of the material on the part of the 
Commission, or to the lack of experience on the part of the Con¬ 
tractor with water-tight work and work of the character required 
in the fabrication of the lock-gate material, or to one or both of 
these causes combined. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. Ill 

There will have to be added to the price per ton above fixed as 
showing the difference, the percentage of the $1.80 a ton that is due 
to excessive demands made by the Isthmian Canal Commission. 

The specific contentions on which the second claim considered 
above is based are stated by the Contractor on pages 7 and 8 of the 
claim, as follows: 

Second. That the Commission’s engineers and inspectors demanded and re¬ 
ceived shopwork of a much more refined and costly character than that called 
for by the contract. 

That for a long time both the engineering and inspecting organizations of 
the Commission at the shop were inadequate to handle the work. 

That the Commission’s shop inspectors were at times unreasonable, indecisive, 
and inconsistent, creating in the shop organization a state of uncertainty as to 
what would be acceptable to the inspectors. 

That the Commission’s engineers and inspectors forced the Contractor to 
make the sizes of the subpunched holes smaller than clearly specified in the 
contract specifications. 

That all this very much delayed the progress in the shop, increased the manu¬ 
facturing cost, diminished the shop output, and held up and increased the work 
in the field to such an extent that an enormous expense was incurred in order 
to complete the work in the time required. 

The Contractor claims that the character of the work he was re¬ 
quired to do under the specifications was indicated by the following 
provision in the invitation: 

In making the award no bidders w 7 ill be considered who are not manufacturers 
of high-grade structural, bridge, or ship work of such character as is required 
in the specifications, or whose facilities for furnishing the material in the time 
specified and of the quality required shall not be, in the opinion of the Commis¬ 
sion, sufficient for the purpose. 

The general provision in the invitation seems to have been intended 
to limit the bids to manufacturers of a special character of work. 
The Contractor certainly had no right to accept this statement as 
in any w T ay limiting or defining the specific requirements set out in 
the specifications as to the character and finish of the work. It is 
claimed, however, that the shop work demanded and received was 
more costly, more accurate, and more highly finished than was re¬ 
quired for first-class workmanship under the specifications. It is 
claimed that the work should have been fabricated in the shop with 
the same care and methods that the Contractor had been accustomed 
to using on high-class bridge and structural-steel work, but that in 
place of allowing the material to be fabricated in the shop in this 
way the demands as to accuracy and finish in the work made by the 
Isthmian Canal Commission’s inspectors were such that it practi¬ 
cally became a machine-shop job. (See pp. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 
22 of the claim.) 

Before the contract was let to the McClintic-Marshall Construction 
Co. the question as to whether they had the proper shop equipment 
and facilities to perform the contract w T as investigated, and it was 
determined that the Contractor was well equipped to perform the 
work called for under the specifications. (See testimony of Maj. 
Boggs, General Exhibit 23, vol. 23, pp. 71 and 72.) 

On page 18 of the claim the Contractor makes a statement of some 
of the important and unreasonable demands which it is claimed were 
made by the inspectors on the shop workmanship. 


112 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


This statement reads as follows: 

(а) The precision demanded in the spacing of the punched and drilled holes 
was so exacting that the Contractor was abliged to abandon, except for the 
first eight leaves fabricated, his customary method of using wooden templets 
and substitute therefor steel templets and arrange to punch the holes smaller 
diameter than called for by the specifications. 

(б) It was required that the plates be turned and calipered in the shop be¬ 
fore any work was done on them, a most unusual and unreasonable shop 
requirement. 

(c) Plates and shapes, as commercially rolled, are never theoretically per¬ 
fect either in finish, dimensions, or shape. Nevertheless, in a number of the 
different parts the Contractor was compelled to correct these imperfections by 
an excessive amount of work. 

( d ) The workmanship required on the turned bolts was of such an exacting 
nature that the Contractor was compelled to abandon the manufacturing of 
them. These bolts were subsequently made by another concern by a man whom 
the Contractor had employed on machines of the same make as those on which 
the bolts were finally made. 

(e) The unreasonableness in the inspection is also shown by the causes for 
which a large amount of material was rejected at the shop before and after 
fabrication. 

A very large part of the claim of the Contractor is based upon the 
increased expense which, it is claimed, resulted from the great ac¬ 
curacy in the spacing of the holes demanded by the Isthmian Canal 
Commission’s inspectors. It is insisted that the accuracy demanded 
was so exacting that it could not be met by using wooden templets, 
as had been customary, and that in order to meet that accuracy it 
was necessary to substitute steel templets and punch the holes of 
smaller diameter than called for in the specifications. 

The first eight leaves were fabricated substantially in accordance 
with the requirements of the contract as interpreted by the Con¬ 
tractor. (See Guynn’s testimony, General Exhibit 6, vol. 6, p. 11; 
testimony of C. M. Neeld, Exhibit 23, vol. 23, p. 11; and testimony 
of Thomas Conley, General Exhibit 22, vol. 22, p. 11.) 

On page 11 of the testimony of Mr. Guvnn he was asked this 
question: 

I will get you to describe, Mr. Guynn, the general character of the inspection 
of that material and any rules by which you were guided in making the 
inspection. 

A. At the time the contractor started the fabrication of the material, which 
was, if I remember correctly, some time during the middle of November, 1910, 
they began fabricating the material first for the girders, and in the meantime 
followed along with the sheathing plates, intercosal framing, and some few 
water-tight frames and nonwater-tight frames. During that time the drawings 
were accessible, showing the size, location, and requirements for that class of 
work. Each of the inspectors had their instructions in connection with the 
part which he was following, which he was to look out for. They were 
instructed not to exact the inevitable; to accept any part of the work that they 
thought would be satisfactory to themselves; and if there was any doubt to 
refer the matter immediately to me. And during that time I was there, if I 
remember correctly, the only material that was fabricated was that portion of 
contract 4845, eight leaves for the 54-foot 8-inch gates—a portion of it only. 

Describing the inspection during this period, Mr. Neeld states, in 
response to the question: 

Do you know the method of inspection that he adopted [referring to Mr. 
Guynn] in connection with the fabrication of the material for the lock gates as 
it went through the shop? 

A. Well, I could not say I ever discovered any method that was used, but at 
least it got results that were satisfactory to us. The method of inspection was 
such that they seemed to be rambling all over the shop, everywhere and any¬ 
where, finding fault and making sort of informal kicks, and, I suppose, more 


MeCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


113 


or less formal ones; but it was very hard to get down to definite, particulai 
things. Under the question of the reaming of those holes, which was a modi¬ 
fication, I believe, on the contract, of reaming the diaphragm holes to tem¬ 
plets that was one of the first questions that came up—the absolute exactness 
that was required, if I remember correctly, with my memory somewhat re¬ 
freshed from reading those letters; but that was a comparatively small matter 
in our shop. 

Mr. Conley was asked this question: 

In the early part of the work, in December, 1910, and January, 1911, prior to 
the assembly of the first leaf, is it not a fact that the inspection of the material 
in the yard was carried on very much like they carry on the inspection of bridge 
work in the shop? 

A. Yes; I think that was about the way it was carried on, according to my 
recollection. 

Q. After they began the assembly of the first leaf in the yard, what were the 
principal difficulties that they found with the material, in assembling it?— 
A. The question was raised about the sheathing plates not matching up with the 
holes in the girders. 

Q. Were there any others?—A. That was the principal question that was 
raised, according to my recollection. A hole would be a small part out—for 
instance, one thirty-second of an inch out—from matching up, and the question 
came up that the work was not right on that account, whereas in all bridge shop 
practice that work is all right, particularly when punched small and reamed out 
to a large size. But we did have trouble with Mr. Hammer because these 
holes would not match out. 

Iii a letter dated March 1, 1911, Exhibit No. 1, testimony of Mr. 
Guvnn, General Exhibit No. 6, volume No. 6, the statement was 
made: 

The Contractors began to assemble one leaf, No. 37, of the 54-foot 8-incli 
high gates January 28, 1911, and worked on the same continuously until the 
leaf was four panels high, when it was noted that the upstream sheathing and 
doubling plates did not member with the holes in the chord angles on the 
girders. February 15, 1911, the Contractors stopped work on the erection of 
the leaf and the assembling of girders to make steel templets to check all mate¬ 
rial that had been previously manufactured for the above contract. On Feb¬ 
ruary 27, 1911, the Contractors began to assemble the second section of the leaf 
and the fitting of the bent end plates on quoin end of the first section erected. 

This letter also gives in detail the various points wherein the mate¬ 
rial seemed to be deficient. 

In fabricating the material during December, 1910, and January, 
1911, it seems to be h fact that the inspection was practically of the 
same character as the Contractor thinks should have obtained 
throughout the work, except as to the accuracy demanded in the 
spacing of the holes. 

Paragraph 120 of the specifications provides: 

In order to detect any errors in the templates, etc., the contractor shall erect 
at his works without charge one complete leaf of each different height in¬ 
cluded in his contract. Such leaves shall be carefully assembled and bolted 
together, but are not to be riveted up nor have the rivet and bolt holes 
reamed. Each piece in these leaves shall be match marked, so as to facili¬ 
tate reassembling. All other leaves of the same height shall be built from 
the same templates but need not be erected in the shops. Any errors in 
the templates or elsewhere, found during the shop erection, must be corrected 
in all leaves. 

On the assembly of the first section of the leaves under the above 
provision, the Isthmian Canal Commission’s inspectors discovered 
what they consider to be an unreasonably large number of unfair 
holes and claimed that the work had been fabricated so as to pro¬ 
duce unsatisfactory results. 


29249°— H. Doc. 900, 64-1-8 



114 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO 


In a report made by Mr. Guynn to Mr. Hammer, under date of 
February 15, 1911, Exhibit 9, testimony of Mr. Neeld above referred 
to, he states: 

The Contractor has assembled one leaf of the 54-foot 8-inch high gate, 4 panels 
high. The work in general is unsatisfactory. 

In a report made by Mr. Guynn to Mr. Hammer, under date of 
1911, he states: 

The Contractors have assembled one leaf of the 54-foot 8-inch high gate, 
4 panels high. 

The erected parts of the 54-foot 8-inch high leaf don’t match as well as 
should be expected, especially is it noted that rivet holes in the girders run 
somewhat irregular. The Contractors have, upon my request, made steel 
templates which are now being used in checking up all girders in order to 
ascertain which girders can be considered as interchangeable members. 

A high degree of accuracy in the shopwork is required in order to get every¬ 
thing to match properly. Such accuracy is being demanded, and the Con¬ 
tractors are working to reach this result. 

The number of unfair holes in the first 80 girders, contract 4845, 
were taken from the work reports and shown in detail in a report in 
tabulated form and turned over to Mr. Hammer March 2, 1911 
copy of which appeared in connection with the testimony of Mr. 
Neeld (Exhibit No. 10), General Exhibit No. 23, volume of testi¬ 
mony No. 23. 

The table below gives the totals as taken from this report: 


No. of girder. 


1 G 13 R (jiged holes). 

1 G 13 R (total holes, report not complete) 

2 G 13 R. 

3 G 14 R. 

4 G 14 R. 

5 G 14 R. 

6 G 14 L. 

7 G 14 L. 

8G 14 L. 

9 G 14 I. 

10 G 14 L. 

11 G 14 R. 

12 G 14 L. 

13 G 15 R (report not complete). 

14 G 14 R. 

15 G 14 L. 

16 G 14 L. 

17 G 14 R. 

18 G 14 L. 

19 G 14 R. 

20 G 13 and 14. 

21 G 13 L. 

22 G 13 I. 

23 G 13 L. 

24 G 13 R. 

25 G 13 L. 

26 G 13 L. 

27 G 13 L. 

28 G 15 L (report not complete). 

29 G 13 R. 

30 G 13 R. 

31 G 13 R. 

32 G 20. 

33 G 13 L. 

34 G 15 R (report not complete). 

35 G 15 L (report not complete)... 

36 G 15 R. 

37 G 15 R (report not complet P. 

38 G 13 L. 

39 G 13 L. 

40 G 13 R. 

41 (no report. 

42 G 29. 


imber 

holes. 

Number 
of fair 
holes. 

Number 
of unfair 
holes. 

Per¬ 

centage. 

406 

362 

44 

11 

2,088 




2,086 

1,976 

110 

5.2 

2,086 

2,008 

78 

3.7 

2,086 

1,934 

152 

7.3 

2,086 

1,989 

97 

4.6 

2,086 

1,968 

118 

5.7 

2,086 

1,981 

105 

5 

2,086 

1,977 

109 

5.2 

2,086 

2,013 

73 

3.5 

2, 086 

1,996 

90 

4.3 

2,086 

2,010 

76 

3.6 

2,086 

1,992 

94 

4.5 

2,086 




2,086 

1,954 

132 

6.3 

2,086 

2,003 

83 

4 

2,086 

1,929 

157 

7.5 

2,086 

2,012 

74 

3.5 

2,086 

1,965 

98 

4.7 

2,086 

1,920 

166 

7.9 

2,086 

1,968 

118 

5.6 

2,086 

1,971 

115 

5. 5 

2,086 

1,979 

107 

5.1 

2,086 

1,969 

117 

5. 6 

2,086 

2,031 

55 

2.6 

2,086 

2,048 

38 

1.8 

2,086 

1,996 

90 

4.3 

2,086 

1,976 

110 

5.2 

2,112 




2,086 

2,004 

82 

3.9 

2,086 

1,997 

87 

4.2 

2,086 

2,020 

66 

3.1 

2,078 

1,976 

102 

4.9 

2,086 

2,030 

56 

2.7 

2,112 




2,112 




2,112 

2,050 

62 

2.9 

2,112 




2,112 

2,051 

61 

2.9 

2,086 

2,057 

29 

1.4 

2,086 

2,030 

56 

2.7 

2,078 

2,010 

68 

3.2 






























































McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


115 


No. of girder. 

Number 
of holes. 

Number 
of fair 
holes. 

Number 
of unfair 
holes. 

Per¬ 

centage. 

43 G 20. 

2,078 
2,078 
2,078 
2,370 
2,078 
2,120 
2,078 

1,985 
2,000 
1,947 
2,269 
2,053 
1,990 
2,044 
1,992 
1,960 
2,056 
2,014 
2,006 
1,990 
2,006 
1,972 
1,979 
2,057 
2,050 

93 

4.4 

44 G 20 . 

78 

3.7 

45 G 20. 

131 

6.3 

46 G 2 R. 

101 

4.3 

47 G 20. 

25 

1.3 

48 G 5 R. 

130 

6.1 

49 G 20. 

34 

1.6 

50 G 20. 

2,078 

2,066 

86 

4.1 

51 G 21 R. 

106 

5.1 

52 G 21 L. 

2,066 

10 

. 5 

53 G 21 R. 

2,066 

2,066 

2,066 

2,066 

2,066 

2,066 

2,064 

2,064 

2,064 

2,064 

2,064 

2,004 

52 

2.5 

54 G 21 L 

60 

2.9 

55 G 21 L. 

76 

3.7 

56 G 21 L. 

60 

2.9 

57 G 21 R. 

94 

4.5 

58 G 21 L. 

87 

4.2 

59 G 22 . 

7 

.3 

60 G 22. 

14 

_ 7 

61 G 22 (report not complete). 


62 G 22 (report not complete). 




63 G 22. 

1,988 

76 

3.7 

64 G 23 (report not complete). 


65 G 23 (report not complete). 

6,064 

2,064 

2,587 

2,064 

2,064 




66 G 23 (report not complete). 




67 G 17 R (report not complete). 




68 G 23. 

toto 

S 2 

47 

2.3 

69 G 23 . 

55 

2.6 

70 G 23 (report not complete) 

2,064 
2,064 
2,064 
2,164 
2,064 
2,064 
2,120 
2,120 


71 G 23 (report not complete). 




72 G 22 (report not complete). 




73 G 22 (report not complete) 




74 G 22 (report not complete)... 




75 G 22. 

2,013 

51 

2.5 

76 G 5 L (report not complete). 



77 G 5 R (report not complete)... 


. 






79 (report not complete)......_............_.............. 





on ^ R frp-nnrt riot oomnlfttP ) 











The above table is the table referred to in Mr. Guynn’s report to 
Mr. Hammer dated February 28, 1911, Exhibit No. 8 (Guynn) in 
General Exhibit No. 6, volume No. 6, of testimony. In that letter 
Mr. Guynn stated: 

I have been informed that the material that has been worked for the 
77-foot gates may not be used after making new templates. 

He also stated: 

Very little work has been done in shop since February 15, 1911, with the 
exception of checking and making new templates. 

The total rejections of which the Isthmian Canal Commission 
inspectors made a record for oblong and mispunched holes amounted 
to 122,507 pounds. Of this amount 94,900 pounds was rejected on 
contracts Nos. 4845 and 4847. Contract 4845 is for the 54-foot 8-inch 
leaves, all of the material of which was punched in accordance with 
the original specifications. The material rejected under contract 
No. 4847 was material that was laid off and punched prior to the 
time that it was determined to change the size of the holes. It 
appears, therefore, that nearly all of the rejections that were made 
for mispunching and inaccurate spacing of the holes were made on 
the material that was punched or the holes drilled in accordance 
with the original specifications. (For list of rejected material and 
the weights of the rejections and the causes for which the rejections 
were made see Exhibit No. 8 in Price’s testimony found in General 
Exhibit No. 18, vol. 18.) 

































































116 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


During the time that the shop was practically shut down, that is 
from February 15 to some time in March, and was checking up the 
material with steel templates that had been made for that purpose, 
Mr. John N. Ostrom, of Pittsburgh, Pa., an expert bridge engineer 
and shop inspector, was requested to make a personal examination 
of the conditions at the plant and the way in which the work was 
being fabricated with a view to his employment as a supervising 
engineer by the Contractors. (See testimony of Mr. Ostrom, General 
Exhibit 19, vol. 19, pp. 37 to 58, inclusive.) 

On page 46 of the testimony just cited Mr. McClintic makes a 
statement explaining the reason for the employment of Mr. Ostrom 
and the purpose which the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. 
intended to accomplish by his employment: 

Our experience with Mr. Ostrom is—we have known him for—well, I have 
known Mr. Ostrom I think for 27 years, something like that; and when we 
were connected with the old Schiffier Bridge Co. before our company was 
formed, Mr. Ostrom inspected a considerable amount of work here for the dif¬ 
ferent railroad companies'', and we had always noticed that he did his work 
very carefully and accurately. 

When we contracted for the Beaver bridge, it was a very particular piece 
of work, being of the cantilever construction; and we felt that we would save 
many a dollar by employing Mr. Ostrom as an outside inspector, to supervise 
not only the railroad company’s inspectors, but our own inspectors, and catch 
up any errors that might pass either of them. Mr. Ostrom performed his work 
so well on the Beaver bridge that we felt justified in employing him on any 
similar structure in the future that we might have where particular care was 
required. 

When we ran into this trouble with the inspectors on the lock gates our first 
thought was of Mr. Ostrom, and we called him up, as I remember, and had a 
conference with him and offered him a position to supervise the inspection of 
this work, and at the same time, being an outside inspector, he would be unin¬ 
fluenced by any other consideration except to get good work. 

Now, Mr. Ostrom came out to the plant and looked over the work and talked 
with Mr. Hammer and other inspectors there, and, as I understand it, he 
found that the requirements of the Government as interpreted by Mr. Hammer 
and his inspection force were so severe that he could not obtain the kind of 
work that was required. So, rather than undertake that work and not get 
satisfactory results, he would not undertake it at all. 

Mr. Ostrom. Yes; that is right. 

Mr. Ostrom, after an examination of the work, wrote a letter to 
Mr. H. IT. McClintic, vice president and general manager of the 
McClintic-Marshall Construction Co., giving his reason why he did 
not wish to accept employment as supervisor of the work. The 
original of this letter is Exhibit No. 1 in Mr. Ostrom’s testimony. 
General Exhibit No. 19, volume No. 19. Mr. Ostrom was asked this 
question: 

Q. Did you explain to Mr. McClintic in more detail than appears here in this 
letter why you thought the requirements of the Isthmian Canal Commission’s 
inspectors were impossible of ascertainment, or at least impracticable?—A. My 
remembrance is that I had a set of drawings, and that I had been over those 
girders that were set up in the yard; that I had measured up all the specified 
rivets carefully; and that I had a record of that; and that I showed that—well, 
to Mr. McClintic and probably to the manager. I know I spent several days there; 
I do not remember how long. It was not a long time, but it was long enough 
to go over the whole thing and measure it all up, and I did not make any deci¬ 
sion until I had examined all the points; and my remembrance is that that was 
all recorded on drawings, but I do not think 1 ever made any report, except a 
verbal report, and I can not remember what became of those drawings; I think 
they were notes made on blue prints or sketches that I either made or had 
made for the purpose. I went over it very carefully and made my statements 
on what I saw myself. (See pp. 47 and 48 in vol. if) of the testimony.) 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


117 


On page 49 Mr. Ostrom was asked this question: 

Q. Did you make a study of the requirements that had to be met 
in order to make the gates build up accurately?—A. Yes. 

Q. And miter properly at the respective ends?—A. Of course, the 
building up of the girders in these gates depended entirely on the 
spacing of the rivets and getting them the right length so that they 
would be accurate in dimensions. I went over all that. 

Q. Did you ever superintend the construction of any work where 
there were as many rivets requiring such accurate spacing as was 
required in these lock gates?—A. Yes; I think the girder work of 
all bridges, like drawbridges and long-span bridges and bridges gen¬ 
erally, is just as accurate and requires just as close work as the work 
on the girders in the Panama locks, and I have had years and years 
experience in that. 

Q. Then why was it that you thought this work was impossible 
and that you could not do it?—A. Simply because I talked with Mr. 
Hammer and expressed my opinion about the reasonableness and 
unreasonableness of certain kinds of work. For instance, to punch 
you have your drawings giving certain specified length and height 
and width. Now, it is a comparatively easy matter to punch one 
dimension and make them all fit—length, for instance. Then, if 
you add to that height, why, that increases the trouble. But, now, 
when you have width, four or five girders connected by diaphragms 
in between, where you have got to contend with the thickness of the 
material and putting one plate against another and building out 
wider—when you come to punch that dimension and get that also to 
be so accurate that after it is punched you can ream that out to the 
dimension and get a smooth hole—and that is what he was requiring; 
and I suggested to him that it would be possible to overcome that bv 
reaming out larger—or, where it was necessary, if material had been 
badly punched and it was in tension and affected the stability of the 
structure, instead of throwing it all away, why, put on an extra piece 
to overcome that, and in case of compression the extra-large holes 
would not destroy area and would actually benefit the structure. I 
explained to him that that was what we always did in first-class 
bridge work; and I stated that I thought it ought to be done in this 
contract; that if it were done in a spirit of doing the best thing that 
could be done under the circumstances, that the work could be done. 
Now, he did not listen to me with any consideration at all; he did 
not admit that. 

Q. What did he say about it?—A. He insisted that the material could be 
punched and reamed and put together with all three dimensions accurate 
according to the specifications; and I did not agree with him; I knew that it 
could not be done. 

Q. Do you know r whether it was actually done afterwards or not?—A. It 
was not done on those that I looked at, and if it w r as done afterwards, why 
it was certainly a great achievement; no bridge has ever been built that 
I have ever seen in this country, and no set of engineers, that I know of, hr ’ 
ever required to have every hole punched so accurately that it would clean 
up. I considered it very unreasonable. 

Q. Well, do you know what percentage of holes Mr. .Hammer would allow 
to pass that w^ere not punched accurately? Did he tell you the percentage 
that he would allow of bad holes before he would reject the pieces?—A. No; 
he did not. I did not understand that he would pass any percentage. He 
might have decided on that afterwards, but he never told me that he would 
consider a certain percentage. 


118 


McCLTNTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


On page 58, Mr. McClintic asked Mr. Ostrom the following ques¬ 
tion : 

Q. Did you consider the requirements of Mr. Hammer beyond all reason, 
and that you could not obtain such accuracy on the work? 

Mr. Ostrom. Yes; that is what I considered it. That is the reason I threw 
it up. 

The evidence establishes the fact that the Contractor did not be¬ 
lieve that he could fabricate the work with the precision demanded 
in the spacing of punched and drilled holes by the Isthmian Canal 
Commission’s inspectors under the customary method of using 
wooden templates. It also establishes the fact that it was thought 
necessary by the Contractor, in order to reach the precision de¬ 
manded in spacing holes by the Isthmian Canal inspectors, to reduce 
the size of all subpunched subdrilled holes to eleven-sixteenths inch 
in diameter. After the fabrication of the material for the first 
eight leaves and a part of the material on contract No. 4847 being 
for the 77-foot leaves, the Contractor did abandon his customary 
methods of using wooden templates and did reduce the size of the 
holes to eleven-sixteenths inch in diameter. Whether or not he was 
obliged to do this by reason of the precision demanded by the 
Isthmian Canal Commission, or whether the inaccuracy in the work 
had been due to his own carelessness in the method of fabricating, 
will now be considered. 

The principal witnesses who had personal knowledge of the char¬ 
acter of the inspection and the manner in which the work was being 
fabricated prior to February 23, 1911, when the change was made 
to punch all holes eleven-sixteenths inch in diameter, are: 

Mr. George F. Guynn, chief inspector of the Isthmian Canal Com¬ 
mission (General Exhibit No. 6, vol. No. 6). 

Mr. Thomas Conley, general superintendent of the Rankin plant 
of the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co., from 1906 to 1915 
(General Exhibit No. 22, vol. No. 22). 

Mr. C. M. Neeld, manager of the Rankin plant of the McClintic- 
Marshall Construction Co. during the latter half of the year 1910 
and until June 1, 1911 (General Exhibit No. 23, vol. No. 23). 

Other witnesses having personal knowledge of the character of the 
material after it was fabricated, and the manner in which it was 
fabricated from an inspection of it in the yard or from an examina¬ 
tion of much of the material after it was fabricated, and also having 
knowledge of the requirements of the contract, are: 

Mr. Paul L. Wolfel (General Exhibit No. 7, vol. No. 7). 

Mr. Henry Goldmark (General Exhibit No. 8, vol. No. 8). 

Mr. W. E. Crane, who succeeded Mr. Guynn as chief inspector 
(General Exhibit No. 5, vol. No. 5). 

Mr. Frank Price, who succeeded Mr. Crane as chief inspector May 
5,1911 (General Exhibits Nos. 10 and 18, vols. Nos. 10 and 18). 

Mr. C. D. Marshall, president of the McClintic-Marshall Co. (Gen¬ 
eral Exhibit No. 10, vol. No. 10). 

Mr. Howard H. McClintic, the vice president of the McClintic- 
Marshall Construction Co. 

Mr. John N. Ostrom. 

Mr. Walter N. Wagoner, chief inspector of the McClintic-Marshall 
Construction Co., all (General Exhibit No. 19, vol. No. 19 of the 
testimony). 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 119 

Mr. Guynn was asked on page 19 of his testimony above re¬ 
ferred to: 

Q. Mr. Guynn, do you know why the Contractors changed their method of 
manufacture and abandoned the wooden templates for steel templates?—A. 
(On p. 20.) Well, 1 could not say exactly, other than that they thought per¬ 
haps—and I thought so, too—that they could obtain better results after the 
assembling of the first section of that leaf. 

Q. Then, the object of using the steel templates instead of the wooden tem¬ 
plates was to obtain greater accuracy, in the work?—A. I think so. 

Mr. Guynn was then asked the question: 

Q. I will get you to state just what demands you made on the McClintic- 
Marshall Construction Co. as to the spacing of the punched and drilled holes 
in the material that you inspected?—A. Well, it sort of avoided question. In 
the first place, we could never tell until when, at different times, they began 
to assemble and bolted up and found out the condition of the holes, whether 
they were fair or unfair, or whether the joining member was going to be fair 
with the same original hole that was punched. The question came up, I think, 
when they assembled the first girder. It was noted that the holes in the 
upstream chord angles in the curved end seemed not to he in line, when it 
was known that the same holes that were matching it were in line in the cov¬ 
ered plates anti sheathing plates. It was due, practically or possibly, to the 
fact that the angle on the inner side would slip a little bit one way, and the 
angle on the inner side would slip a little the other way. Well, we noted it 
and talked the matter over with the contractors fully several times, and we 
were trying to get some way to overcome it by placing the centers, and work¬ 
ing from the centers on the girders. But even then we noted these conditions; 
but we could not avoid it. We had the material for those girders punched, and 
some others ready to he assembled. So I could not see any other way, and 
suggested that we wait and put one up and see how badly off we really were 
when we came to match the material to it. And the first section of the leaf 
erected was the result, or the proof, of it. 

Q. Well, I will ask you if the necessity for making the change in the tem¬ 
plates, as claimed here, arose from any excessive demands made on the con¬ 
tractor by the inspectors?—A. Not unless they were made by Mr. Hammer, the 
engineer, himself. 

Q. I will ask you to state if, in your judgment, the inherent character of the 
work and the method of performing it, would not account for the extreme diffi¬ 
culty in properly spacing the rivets, to a certain extent?—A. I did not quite 
understand that question. 

Q. The statement is made by the Contractor here that the precision demanded 
in the spacing of the punched and drilled holes was so exacting that the 
Contractor was obliged to abandon, except in the first eight leaves fabricated, the 
customary method of using wooden templets.—A. Well, it was the same thing 
that was determined in erecting this leaf, with the number that I have just 
read of unfair holes on both the upstream and downstream sides. 

The letter referred to in the last answer of Mr. Guynn is Exhibit 
No. 1 of Mr. Guynn’s testimony, dated March 1 , 1911, and is as 
follows: 

Bkaddock, Pa., March 1, 1911. 

Mr. J. Hammer, Assistant Engineer. 

Sir: The following is a memorandum regarding the erection of one leaf of 
the 54-foot 8-incli high gate, contract No. 4845: 

The contractors began to assemble one leaf No. 37 of the 54-foot 8-inch high 
gates January 28, 1911, and worked on the same continuously until the leaf 
was four panels high, when it was noted that the upstream sheathing and 
doubling plates did not member with the holes in the chord angles on the 
girders. February 15, 1911, the contractors stopped work on the erection of the 
teaf and the assembling of girders to make steel templets to check all ma¬ 
terial that had been previously manufactured for the above contract. On 
February 27, 1911, the contractors began to assemble the second section of the 
leaf and the fitting of the bent end plate on quoin end of the first section 
erected. 


120 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


TComments on leaf No. 37, 54-foot 8-inch high gates, that is being assembled.! 


(1) The bottom girder, mark C-2, was placed in position without the water¬ 
tight staple at the miter end being fitted in place. This staple has been fitted 
in place lately, but has not been riveted. 

(2) The upstream chord angles do not fit tight against the heel casting. 

(3) The downstream sheathing plates were assembled in leaf without the 
reinforcing plates around manholes. 

(4) Through an error in laying off the jig holes for diaphragms A at the 
miter end between the bottom and next to bottom girder, it will be necessary to 
fit new angles on diaphragm A and match mark the same (also mark special). 

(5) The water-tight diaphragms B was placed on leaf and removed on ac¬ 
count of it being a little deeper than called for on plan and the packing out of 
the reinforcing plates on the girders. When this diaphragm was in its position 
on the leaf, it projected very nearly five-sixteenths inch above the top of the 
heel casting. It is also noted that the offsets on the top corners are not crimped 
in accordance with the approved plans, and the manner in which the staple 
angle is worked on this diaphragm is not fitted in accordance with the general 
method of manufacturing staple angles for water-tight work. 

(6) The bottom fender angles have been bolted in place without being 
beveled, and are not regulated to the required width as called for on plans. 

(7) Water-tight frames marked W. F. 9 and WW. F. 16+ It. are cracked in 
the offset at corners, also two of the electrically welded butts of the angle 
staples are cracked. It is also noted that several of the water-tight frames are 
not drawn to a tight seating on webs on account of the chord angles not fitting 
the offsets of the frames. 

(8) The toe of the far side chord angles on the bottom girder projects one- 
eiglitli to three-sixteenths inch below the planed edge of the bottom sheathing 
plate, which makes difficult and expensive calking. This projection extends 
nearly one-lialf the length of leaf on the up and down stream sides on miter end. 

(9) Splice plate on downstream sheathing on lower panel has been planed 
18f inches instead of 19 inches. This causes the short section of the fender 
angle to project one-fourth inch beyond the splice plate. 

(10) Downstream cover place C-5 has three miss-punched holes, one of which 
has been punched double near the butt at the quoin end. 

(11) The holes in the upstream sheathing plate in the third panel at the 
miter end does not member with the holes in the doubling plate, and two lines 
of holes have been omitted in the same in way of diaphragm B. This place may' 
be incorrectly marked; if so, it could be fitted on the right-hand leaf with better 
results. 

(12) The space for the wedges between the doubling plate and the end reac¬ 
tion castings do not seem to be uniform, due, in my opinion, to the unfairness 
of the sheathing plates. This can be reduced to a certain extent when the 
sheathing is riveted. 

(13) It was noted that during the assembling of the first section of the leaf 
girder No. 5, marked G-14-R, was placed in position on the leaf and was re¬ 
moved and another girder of the same number placed in its stead. The first 
girder that was assembled did not member with the diaphragms A. This 
girder was checked for exact measurements and found to be five-sixteenths 
inch longer on the upstream side than called for. 

(14) On February 27, 1911, the Contractors began to reregulate and bolt 
up the first section of the leaf assembled, with much better results than it was 
in the beginning. There are about 446 unfair holes in the downstream sheath¬ 
ing and 648 in the upstream sheathing, in my opinion, that will not ream clean 
with a straight reamer. 

(15) The end reaction castings have been placed on the miter and quoin 
ends of the leaf four panels high and seem to member and check to height 
fairly well. Attached find sketch showing heights of end reaction castings 
taken on leaf. 

(16) The miter end of the leaf is a little out of plumb and the Contractors 
are trying to correct the same. 

(17) The Contractors have also erected two additional sections of the above 
leaf. The method following in erecting these two sections consisted of erect¬ 
ing the skeleton first and adjusting everything before any sheathing is put on. 
and will, in my opinion, give much better results. 

Very respectfully, 


Geo. F. Guynn, 

Inspector, Isthmian Canal Commission. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


121 


This letter relates wholly to material that had been fabricated 
before the change was made to steel templates and the change to 
small holes was determined upon. 

Mr. Guynn further testified as to the reasons for the change from 
wooden templates to steel templates as follows: 

Q. Then the only thing you did demand as inspector was that the work 
should go together accurately when you assembled it?—A. As near to that as 
possible. 

Q. What?—A. As near to that as possible, for proper acceptance. 

Q. For proper acceptance?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you think it was more difficult for them to obtain proper results with 
wooden templates, in the character of work they were doing on the lock gates, 
than it would have been to obtain similar results on ordinary ship work?—A. 
Well, to a certain extent I would say yes; owing to the fact that the template 
in the lock-gate work had to be used so many more times than it would on 
ship work. 

Q. Well, what would be the tendency of the use of the templates of wood?— 
A. Well, the wood would warp. In many instances it would alter its shape: 
if it was not thoroughly seasoned it would have a tendency to warp, in some 
instances. 

On page 27 Mr. Guynn was asked this question: 

Q. Mr. Guynn, I find this statement in one of Mr. Hammer’s reports to the 
Isthmus. Mr. Hammer reported on February 16, 1911: “A high degree of ac¬ 
curacy in the sliopwork is required in order to get everything to match per¬ 
fectly. Such accuracy is being demanded, and the Contractors are working to 
reach this result.” Can you tell me, from your understanding and the work 
that you did there, and in view of the instructions that you received from 
Mr. Hammer, what was regarded by the inspection force and by Mr. Hammer 
as a high degree of accuracy in connection with this work?—A. Well, I can 
only answer that question by making this statement: That Mr. Hammer ad¬ 
hered very closely to the specifications, and we wanted it, and exacted it, as 
near perfect as it could be gotten; they were held very close to the specifi¬ 
cations. But if I was in doubt—ordinarily if it looked satisfactory to me I 
would accept it—but if I had any doubt whatever I would refer the matter to 
him and wait for him to pass upon it. 

On page 29 Mr. Guynn was asked the following questions: 

Q. Mr. Guynn, is it not a fact that almost all of the difficulty that occurred 
in having the material under contract 4845 for the 54-foot 8-inch gate leaves 
accepted resulted from errors that were developed in assembling the leaf?—A. 
Yes; they developed in assembling the leaf. 

Q. I will ask you to state if there was any practicable way of determining 
whether or not the errors existed before the assembling of the leaf?—A. Well, 
I should say that they must have existed before the assembling. 

Q. Well, I mean that could be determined?—A. Well, no, sir; I would not 
say so. For instance, we had hundreds and hundreds of chord angles; some 
were bent and some were not bent. Numbers and numbers of them were 
punched with a double hole, double spacing in each flange; it would have been 
impossible for any corps of inspectors to even attempt to get in amongst the 
material, with the contractor’s force at work, and check the number of holes 
in each of those chord angles, where there were hundreds and hundreds of 
them, and hundreds and hundreds of angles; and in the meantime you could 
not detect it in every instance, because it depended sometimes on the manner 
in which it was assembled; if one was slipped a little bit one way and the 
other one going in the opposite direction, that doubled the error. So that shows 
to me conclusively that in the first beginning the assembling did show up the 
errors. There w T ere some minor ones, as I stated before, shown when I noted 
the holes in the chord angles; but the main part of them showed up only after 
being assembled. 

Mr. Crane reported on the work of the McClintic-Marshall Con¬ 
struction Co. some time in February, 1911. He became chief in¬ 
spector, succeeding Mr. Guynn, March 6, 1911. In response to a 


122 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


question as to what condition he found the work in at Rankin shop 
No. 2 when he took charge, Mr. Crane stated (p. G) : 

A. For about 30 days previously the shop had been closed, and they were 
making steel templates to check the work on the girders and various other 
members of the leaves. There was considerable work in -the yard, and at the 
time they were measuring up the leaves and checking them with these steel 
templates. (See p. No. 6 of Crane’s testimony.) 

In reply to a question as to what the contractors were doing at the 
time he took charge, he added (p. 8) : 

A. They were measuring up the perimeter of the angles, both upstream and 
downstream, checking the punching of the sheathing plates to compare with 
these measurements on the angles of the girders; they were also checking the 
placing of the stiffeners or the water-tight frame-plate positions on the girders 
and also the position of the A and B frames on the girders. 

Q. Now, Mr. Crane, did you superintend that measurement?—A. I did, from 
the date I was on there—yes; when I went on the work. 

Q. Why was it necessary for the shops to close during this measuring up?— 
A. I can not understand why they closed up; they could have continued on 
the work in the shop, but I understand that they wanted to verify and check 
up these inaccuracies and make make new templates before they continued the 
work. 

Q. Now, do you know what kind of templates they had been using up to 
that time?—A. On certain parts of the work they had been using wooden 
templates, some of them steel templates; a large part of the work was done 
by multiple punching—multiple machines, which we call multiple punchers. 

Q. Well, what kind of templates did they use?—A. They use wooden tem¬ 
plates on the multiple punchers, and they use wooden templates on some of the 
forging, or some of the blacksmith shop work; on milling and boring they 
always use steel templates. 

Q. Did they make steel templates for the purpose of checking up and meas¬ 
uring the work in the yard from the time you took charge?—A. Yes; they 
arranged for long steel plates accurately punched, and then bolted them onto 
the angles of the girders, and marking the holes of each of the girders, and 
thus checked the position of the holes on the girders with the corrected tem¬ 
plates. 

Q. What was the particular objection, if any, to the work and to the char¬ 
acter of the work as it was being assembled at the time you took charge?—A. 
In the punching of the material, say, the angles, from one end, there appeared 
to be a creeping of all of the holes, so that when we reached the other end of 
the perimeter, the holes were out of their proper position, also in the punching 
of the plates—sheathing plates—in punching plates from one end to the other, 
there was a creeping of the holes toward the latter end, and the position at the 
latter end was not proper. 

Q. What do you mean by the latter end?—A. The last end—the farther end. 

Q. They will not appear; explain what you mean by that.—A. I will ex¬ 
plain it this way, that we start in at this end, with a series of plates. 

Q. Which end?—A. With the beginning; here is the machine [indicating 
by rough sketch], placed in the machine, and a row of multiple punches. 

Q. Was there any system as to which end of the plate was to go in?—A. 
No, sir; no system. Any end—either end could be taken unless the holes were 
different, but what I mean is on the naked plate itself; they could turn any 
frame whichever they wanted; they drew this through the "punch, punching 
series of holes until they reached the end of the plate, and completed the punch¬ 
ing. When all the plates were punched and nested together, they were prac¬ 
tically perfect; but in orienting and returning the plate, then came the dis¬ 
crepancies. 

Q. What do you mean by “ orienting ”?—A. Reversing the plate end for end 
or side for side; we can take the plate, say we punched a one-half dozen plates 
that way, begining with this end, “A” [indicating by rough diagram], and 
continuing to “ B.” Now, if we take and place that plate “ A ” here [indicating] 
properly, and take and place “ B ” properly on it, it was all right; but if w^e 
place the “ A ” end at the “ B ” end, or the “ B ” end at the “ A ” end, making 
the plate interchangeable, or if we reverse the plate, putting the bottom to the 
top, then the holes did not coincide. 


McCLINTIC-MARSIIALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


123 


Q. Was it intended—was it required in the specifications that the punching 
of the plates should be such that the holes would coincide whatever end or 
whatever way the plates might be placed?—A. It was required that each plate 
of the same pattern should be interchangeable, so you could reverse it any way, 
or turn it over, and the trouble was then that the plates and the manner in 
which they have been punched were not interchangeable and with perfect holes. 

(>. Now, could the—what action was finally taken in connection with that 
defect?—A. More careful work was done and more careful and more correct 
templates made; the principle is the same all the way through; it was simply 
in the method of work and in the accuracy of the work. 

Q. Then, your understanding of the holding up of the work at that point 
was that it was due in part to the fact that the holes have not been accurately 
punched? Is that right?—A. Yes; that they had not been accurately punched, 
or the templates not accurately made. 

Mr. Crane’s statement is to some extent corroborated by detailed 
statement made to Mr. Hammer, assistant engineer, at the time the 
inspection took place. This detail is found attached to the testimony 
of Mr. Crane. There is also a letter from Mr. Crane, dated April 22, 
1911, found in the report of Mr. Goldmark, page 179, General Ex¬ 
hibit No. 1. volume No. 1, which gives a pretty complete detail as 
to the condition of material when inspected by Mr. Crane. 

It will be noted that Mr. Crane’s knowledge of the condition of the 
material was gained subsequently to the time it was determined to 
punch the holes smaller and subsequent to the time it was determined 
to use steel templates; but as at that time the larger part of the work 
on contract 4845 had been fabricated, it is merely a question on the 
part of Mr. Crane of checking it up to take care of any errors in 
connection with the fabrication of the material. 

Mr. Conley, general superintendent of the Rankin plant of the 
Contractor, was asked this question (page 9) : 

Q. Were you familiar with the character of inspection that was being given 
that material as it passed through the shop by the Isthmian Canal Commission’s 
i nspectors ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you sufficiently well acquainted with this work and the character of 
the various fabricated members of the work, to compare it with other work 
that went through the shop of the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co.?—A. 
Yes, sir; I think I was. 

Q. How did this work, in the general requirements as to the accuracy with 
which it should be manufactured and the difficulties in manufacturing it, com¬ 
pare with first-class bridge work or other structural work?—A. In my opinion 
it was about two or three times better than any first-class bridge work I had 
ever seen going through. 

Q. Well, it would be more difficult to manufacture, then, would it not?—A. 
It certainly would. 

Q. Would it require any more detailed and accurate inspection to insure its 
being manufactured properly than would first-class bridge or structural 
work?—A. It should not have required any more inspection; the only thing 
was that the inspection was more severe. 

Q. Do you mean that the inspection of the Isthmian Canal Commission's 
inspections was more severe?—A. It was more severe than first-class bridge 
work. 

Q. I find on page 15 of this claim of the Contractor this statement: “That 
the Commission’s engineers and inspectors demanded and received shop work 
of a much more refined and costly character than that called for by the con¬ 
tract.” Do you know whether that statement accurately characterizes the 
requirements'that were being made by the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. 
under that contract or not?—A. I can not recall exactly the specifications on 
the contract. In fact, I do not remember of going into that very carefully. 
But I do know that the engineers and inspectors demanded work of a much 
finer grade than that used on any bridge specifications. 


124 


MeCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


Oil pages 22, 23, and 24 in his testimony Mr. Conley states that 
the question of the substitution of steel templates for wooden 
templates in order to get more accurate work was discussed with him. 
He was asked this question: 

Q. Do you think that (meaning change from wooden templates to steel tem¬ 
plates) was necessary in order to get accurate work, or work of the accuracy 
required in this contract?—A. Well, from my experience I figure that that 
work could have been just as well done on wood templates as it was done on 
steel templates. The change was made by the engineering department, I be¬ 
lieve ; but I am speaking from my experience on other classes of work that had 
gone through that had been matched up and was done correctly—for instance, 
the Beaver Bridge—where the work was done on a wood template, and the 
work came together all right; I had nothing to do with the changing from 
wood to steel. 

Q. Do you not think that the extra expense of providing the steel templates 
in work of that kind was more than compensated for by the greater accuracy 
obtained and the greater ease with which it would go together in the field? Do 
you not think, upon the issue of expense, that that would have been cheaper 
really, in the long run, to make and use those steel templates, than it would 
to use wooden templates?—A. No; I think the wood template would have been 
all right. 

Q. You think the wooden template would have been all right; but do you not 
think the steel templates would have given greater accuracy?—A. I can not 
figure out why they would. If you will let me, I would like to explain that 
to you. 

Q. All right.—A. The wood template and the steel template are the same when 
you start off. In other words, you make a mark across the wood template, 
and you do the same thing on the steel template. Now, that mark on the wood 
template is left to the judgment of that man with the carriage to stop the 
indicator directly over that mark on the wood template; the same thing applies 
on the steel template. 

Now, you can make that mark on a wooden template, a brass template, a 
steel template, or any other kind, and still it is left to the judgment of the 
man operating the carriage to stop the indicator directly over that mark. 

Now, you see the reason why a steel template would be preferred over a 
wood template was on account of the shrinkage or expansion of the material; 
wood has a tendency to shrink or elongate, as the case may be, according to the 
weather. Steel would not do that; steel would stay where it was originally 
built. 

Mr. Sterrett. You would have the variations of temperature to contend with 
on the steel template. 

Mr. Conley. l T es. 

Mr. Sterrett. I mention this because I understand that they used ther¬ 
mometers at times on that work; so if they used thermometers, they must have 
taken account of the variations in temperature. 

Mr. Conley. Let me go a little further than that, and say that you do not 
have to use either one; you can set a stop, and that is just as accurate as either 
one or the other, so far as the getting of good work in the material is concerned. 

By Judge Harrah : 

Q. What do you mean by a “stop”?—A. A stop is a piece of steel that is 
set out along the rail on the table on which the carriage travels for conveying 
the material under the punch. These stops are set at predetermined points, 
at just where you want the hole to come in the material, you know. 

Mr. Neeld, on page 12 of his testimony (Exhibit 23, vol. 23) stated 
that there was a great deal of discussion on unfair holes. He was 
asked this question: 

Q. Did you take any steps to ascertain from your own measurements and 
your own inspection whether or not the number of unfair holes that were 
claimed to exist in the work was as great as the commission’s inspectors in¬ 
sisted it was?—A. Yes, sir; I took a good deal of personal pains with that, to 
have them checked up, and many of them that they called an unfair hole I 
did not consider an unfair hole in that class of work. 

Q. How did you differ with them as to what should be considered as an unfair 
hole?—A. Well, as the thing went along through the shop we did a great deal 


MeCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


125 


of measuring and checking up, and, of course, there was always room for a 
difference of opinion on that—that such a thing would happen when the other 
thing took place, etc.—and if you should put a drift pin in it would change the 
whole situation. But the sum and substance of the thing is, as I remember, 
that we claimed that when we got the unit of the gate assembled the holes 
would clean up; we did not always claim they would clean up with a straight 
reamer, but according to the work that was specified there; but my recollection 
is that when we got the unit of the gate assembled according to the specifica¬ 
tion we took the whole gate, and my recollection is that there was not a hole 
that would not ream out when we took a small tapering reamer. It was pos¬ 
sible for an inexperienced man to spoil a hole, but a man who knew his job 
would be able to clean up the hole. My recollection at this time—it was merely 
hearsay on my part at the time—but my recollection is that that worked out on 
the Isthmus. 

Mr. Neeld’s attention was then called to a letter from Mr. Wolfel 
to him, inclosing a letter from Mr. Hammer requesting him to check 
up and make a record of all holes for field rivets in the horizontal 
girders. Mr. Hammer’s letter is quoted below : 

In checking up location of holes for field rivets in horizontal girders I would 
advise that all such holes in the girders should be checked and records taken 
for each girder. In addition to checking the holes in the flange angles, it is 
believed necessary to also check up the location of the reamed holes in the 
girders for frame connections. Some of these last holes have been found in¬ 
accurately reamed—that is, the jigs have been moved to accommodate the 
punched holes. I would advise that the holes for the templets, which are to 
be used in checking girder angles, should be carefully checked. 

It may also be found desirable to check up some of the other material; for, 
instance, sheathing and doubling plates. 

Judge Harrah (continuing). On February 15, 1911, Mr. Wolfel wrote a letter 
to C. M. Neeld. That letter will go in as Exhibit 6 of Mr. Neeld. 

(The letter last referred to was marked “Exhibit No. 6, Neeld.”) 

Judge Harraii (continuing). That letter is as follows: 

“Attached please find four copies of Mr. Hammer’s letter of February 14, in 
reference to the checking of the girders and other material for the 54-foot 8- 
incli gates, leaves of the I. C. C. lock gates, our contract 4845; also my answer 
to the same, dated February 15, and also four copies of Mr. Guynn’s report to 
Mr. Hammer, dated February 10. We further send you four blue prints giving 
the results of Mr. Guynn’s checking of 11 girders up to date. 

“ In discussing the checking of the jigged holes in the webs of girders, Mr. 
Hammer requested to have the checking templets made with holes one-fourth or 
one-half inch larger than the holes used in the girders and then have, from 
these templets, the holes marked off on the girders with paint, similar to what 
we discussed in the city office last Friday for the cover-plate templets. Please 
advise whether you can arrange for this.” 

The report of Mr. Guynn to Mr. Hammer, dated February 10, 
1911, referred to in that letter will be made an exhibit. 

(The letter last referred to was marked “Exhibit No. 7, Neeld.”) 

Judge Harrah (continuing). On February 15, 1911, Mr. Wolfel wrote a letter 
to Mr. Hammer, which will be made an exhibit. 

(The letter last referred to was marked “Exhibit No. 8, Neeld.”) 

Judge Harrah (continuing). That letter is as follows: 

“This acknowledges your letter of February 14, asking us to check over all 
field holes in the girders fabricated up to date, in the flanges as well as in the 
web. We will be governed accordingly. We will also carefully check the 
templets which will be used for this purpose. 

“ The matter of checking up the other material, like sheathing and doubling 
plates, we will take up later on, if it is found desirable or necessary.” 

Mr. Neeld was asked this question: 

Can you give me more in detail than is shown in these letters the reason for 
that procedure as outlined in these letters?—A. Now, that is after we had the 
leaf assembled? 


126 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO 


Mr. Neeld’s attention was called to a letter from Mr. Guynn of 
February 15, 1911, which was made Exhibit No. 9 of Mr. Neeld’s 
testimony, in which Mr. Guynn stated that the work was generally 
satisfactory. In reply to this letter Mr. Neeld stated: 

Yes; generally. That is just where the trouble was, that “ generally.” 
We could not work on that basis. There were the girders lying there, and 
they would not say what was acceptable and what not. We had demonstrated 
to our satisfaction, by assembling, that the work ought to be considered 
satisfactory. 

Mr. Neeld was then asked this question (p. 21) : 

Q. After that check was made, Mr. Neeld, what change, if any, was made as to 
the manner of fabricating the work?—A. Well, they seemed to demand abso¬ 
lutely perfect holes; and the only way we saw to get them was to make steel 
templets, which we proceeded to do; and the size of the holes was reduced; I 
think it was about that time, judging from the letters. 

Mr. Neeld was then asked this question: 

Q. Mr. Neeld, did you ever discuss the question of the advisability of punch¬ 
ing smaller holes than were required in the specifications with either Mr. Ham¬ 
mer or the representatives of the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co.?— 
A. Why, I do not have a specific recollection of the exact conferences or the 
times at which that was discussed; but it probably came up when we were out 
in the yard there discussing that whole section of leaf—the first one that we 
assembled—and that the Government representatives there, including Mr. 
Hammer, said that that work was not satisfactory, and would not be satisfac¬ 
tory the way it was. 

Well, it was reasonably close, being as close as could be expected under 
the specifications; and I know by his letter here [indicating], of the 23d, that 
he practically threatens us that unless things are different he would reject 
the work, and he then goes on to say that he would advise punching the small 
holes. 

Q. Well, do you know what you said about punching small holes about that 
time?—A. I do not remember. 

Q. Did you discuss it with Mr. Hammer?—A. Well, I do not remember the 
details of that discussion, but I am satisfied that we talked it over there; I 
am satisfied that I never agreed to punch small holes, knowing the difficulty 
of fitting it up. 

Q. Had the difficulty of fitting it up occurred to you at that time?—A. Un¬ 
doubtedly it had, because I know from my all-around shop experience that the 
difficulty of fitting up with small bolts is a serious matter. 

Q. Do you know whether you ever called the attention of the management of 
the Rankin shop to the difficulty of fitting up with small bolts?—A. I was the 
management of the Rankin shop. 

Q. Well, I mean those over you.—A. Do you mean Mr. McClintic? 

Q. I mean Mr. McClintic or any of those over you.—A. I do not remember 
that I did. I might have taken it for granted that they knew. 

Q. After the change was made, did you have any difficulty in connecting 
with the holes in the way they were matching up? Did you have any diffi¬ 
culty?—A. I do not remember Judge. Possibly I might have left before we 
did very much fitting up after that. 

Q. Do you remember, Mr. Sterrett?—A. You left June 1. 

In Mr. Paul Wolfel’s testimony, General Exhibit No. 7. volume 
No. 7, pages 205 and 206, a letter from Mr. Hammer, dated January 
21, 1911, is introduced which obtains the first suggestion in writing 
that it would be necessary to reduce the size of the holes. This letter 
is Exhibit No. 61 in Wolfel’s testimony above referred to, and reads 
as follows: 

Inclosed please find copy of letter of this date from Inspector George F. 
Guynn to myself showing results of inspection of a number of girders. From 
Mr. Guynn’s report it will be seen that the number of unfair holes is abnor¬ 
mally large, and I would recommend that steps be taken immediately to reduce 
the number of unfair holes. As the conditions in this respect have not been 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 127 

improved, it is believed that it will be necessary to reduce the size of the 
punched holes or to drill holes from templets. 

During erection of the first leaf, it will be shown also whether it will be 
necessary to ream holes for connections between vertical frames and girders 
in the field, as you will realize it is important to get these holes to match, and, 
at the same time, have the flanges of the frames and girders lined up perfectly. 

Mr. Wolfel makes the following explanation as to his understand¬ 
ing of the meaning of this letter and to what subsequently took place 
in connection with the punching of small holes (see p. 206) : 

When I saw this letter first, I thought it referred to the holes in the skin; 
but later on, from Mr. Guynn’s report, I found it refers to the holes in the 
webs of the girders which were reamed, and through which rivets were driven 
in the shop. But this is the first intimation that the idea of using small holes 
had entered into Mr. Hammer’s head. 

Now, this letter clearly shows that this took place before tbe leaf had been 
assembled, because it says, “ During the erection of the first leaf it will be 
shown,” etc. 

The testimony of Mr. Wolfel and others in connection with the 
subject of changing the size of the holes is quoted below for easy 
reference: 

(Page 207 :) 

Mr. Goldmark. I think that is clear. [Referring to above quoted statement 
made by Mr. Wolfel.] 

Mr. Wolfel. Meanwhile, as shown in Mr. Guynn’s report of March 1 to 
Mr. Hammer, a copy of which is on file, starting January 28, 1911, the shop 
began to assemble the lower part of the leaf in the yard, and this continued 
until February 15, 1911, on which date, as Mr. Guynn states, the contractor 
stopped erection on these leaves. That is the time when Mr. Hammer got so 
excited about the mismatching of the holes. 

Now, it happened that during that period some slight change was 
made in the wedges of the 54-foot 8-inch leaves; and under date 
of February 22, 1911, Mr. Pendergrass wrote to Mr. Hammer a 
letter which I herewith submit: 

We hand you herewith two prints of sheets Nos. 126 and 127, details of 
wedges under end reaction castings for the 54-foot 8-inch gates. 

Judge Harrah. In order that the record may be clear, I do not think we 
have yet shown what connection Mr. Pendergrass has with your company, and 
I think we had better put that in the record. 

Mr. Wolfel. Yes. I believe at that time Mr. Pendergrass’s title was chief 
draftsman. Since then he has been made engineer of the Rankin plant. He 
had charge of all the drawing work at Rankin, and the man in charge of the 
lock-gate work drawings reported to him. He handled all correspondence with 
Mr. Hammer about detailed drawings for the lock gates. 

Judge Harrar. All right, that makes the record clear. 

(Page 208 :) 

Mr. Wolfel (reading). “We hand you herewith two prints of sheets Nos. 
126 and 127, details of wedges under end reaction castings for the 54-foot 8-inch 
gates. These two sheets have previously been approved by you, but we have 
been compelled to make them over again owing to the new arrangement of the 
wedges, with which you are familiar. We also hand you the original tracings 
of these two sheets in order that you may compare the two. We would thank 
you to approve these two sheets at your earliest convenience.” 

Now, this is purely a letter submitting drawings for approval. Nothing is 
said about trouble with the leaves; nothing is said about the use of small holes. 

Q. When was that letter written?—A. February 22, 1911. 

(The letter last referred to was made Exhibit 63, Wolfel.) 

Mr. Wolfel (continuing). Now, Mr. Hammer replies to that under date of 
February 23, 1911—letter to Mr. Pendergrass: 

“ Referring to your letter of the 22d instant, in regard to approval of sheets 
Nos. 126 and 127, showing details of wedges under end reaction castings for 
the 54-foot 8-inch gates: 


128 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


“ The blue prints received seem to be correct, and the tracings for same, sub¬ 
mitted this date, have been approved, and are returned herewith. The old 
tracings are also returned herewith, and should be marked void.” 

So far it is purely a routine matter. Now, next he says: 

“ In case all the 54-foot 8-inch leaves should be assembled here and match 
marked, it may prove necessary to have also these wedge plates match marked, 
as otherwise a number of holes would not ream out clean and the work might 
be rejected. 

“ I would advise punching smaller holes. Respectfully, .T. Hammer.” 

First, the third paragraph shows that in Mr. Hammer’s mind had arisen the 
possibility of-• 

Judge Harrah (interposing). Well, I do not care about your arguing about 
what it showed in Mr. Hammer’s mind. What did it show to you? 

Mr. Wolfel. Well, when I saw it—I had not seen it at that time; but when 
I saw it in the records it showed to me, first, that in Mr. Hammer’s mind had 
arisen the idea that it might be necessary to assemble all of those 54-foot 8-inch 
leaves in our yard and match mark them. 

Mr. Goldmark. All the eight? 

Mr. Wolfel. Yes; all the 54-foot 8-inch leaves. That shows how alarmed 
he was about the small holes; that shows how impractical he was to think of 
such a thing. It would have taken us a year and a half to do it. 

By Judge Harrah : 

Q. Was this letter brought to your attention at the time it was written?—A. 
No. I had no hand in this controversy about small holes, and what Mr. Ham¬ 
mer claimed was bad work in the shop. I talked with Mr. Hammer, and knew 
he was alarmed about it, and knew that lie was unduly alarmed about it. But 
this matter was handled between the management, by which I mean Mr. Mc- 
Clintic and Mr. Marshall and Mi-. Hammer, and all I can tell you is from the 
correspondence as the result of this letter. 

Now, what happened there on that day I do not know. But here is a letter 
from Mr. Pendergrass to Mr. Froesell, who (p. 210) was in charge of the draw¬ 
ings, dated February 23, 1911, as follows: 

“ Please see that the following work is done at your earliest opportunity, and 
when completed return this order to the undersigned. 

“It has been decided that for the first leaf of the 77-foot gates to punch all 
the holes in the skin and the pieces which connect to them ii-inch, both foi¬ 
l-inch and 1-inch rivets. Do not, however, change the tracings, but note on the 
prints in the shop in yellow pencil, as it may be necessary to change this 
later on.” 

(The letter last referred to was marked “Exhibit 65, Wolfel.”) 

Mr. Wolfel (continuing). That was the direct outcome of this correspond¬ 
ence. 

It will be noted, however, I ought to add, that this note covers only one leaf. 
Now, there must be something else later on which will apply to all, but that I 
have not been able to find. 

Q. Have you the reply of your office to this letter of Mr. Hammer of Feb¬ 
ruary 23, 1911?—A. This is all the correspondence I have been able to locate; 
and, as I said, I did not see this correspondence at the time being myself. I 
only ran across it lately. 

Q. You do not know, then, whether there was ever any reply made to that 
letter of Mr. Hammer?—A. I have not been able to find one, and I judge that 
the transaction Mas verbal after that. 

Q. Was the subject of changing the size of the holes (p. 211) brought to your 
attention at the time Mr. Pendergrass gave instructions to Mr. Froesell to make 
the change?—A. I do not believe so, and I know I had nothing to do with reach¬ 
ing any decision in this matter; it was entirely handled between our manage¬ 
ment and our drawing room. But I want to say this, that of course I heard 
later on about the use of these small holes, and I want to state this, that I 
have always been strongly opposed to their use. As I stated, my object in using 
the 1-inch rivets was to get the benefit of the large holes, and I made pencil 
sketches myself showing how wasted the use of these small holes was. I have 
not the pencil sketches. 

(Page 211:) 

Q. When did you first learn small holes were being punched or drilled in 
this material?—A. It must have been just about that time. I could not give 



McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


129 


a definite date when I heard first, but I probably heard shortly after this 
occurrence. 

Q. Well, if you were opposed to the use of small holes and thought it was a 
detriment to the work, what action did you take to prevent it?—A. That is 
what I was leading up to. I prepared myself pencil drawings, which are not 
any more available, but of which I have made a reproduction here in ink; and 
I have been over those pencil drawings with Mr. Hammer and Mr. McClintic 
and Mr. Marshall to try to prove how senseless it was to use those small holes; 
and I can explain that sketch to you and Mr. Goldmark right here. 

Q. Comment on and explain the sketch you have submitted showing the 
finished diameter of holes for 1-inch rivets (p. 212) and the relative position 
of eleven-sixteenths-inch punched holes in the same. 

(The sketch was marked “Exhibit 66, Wolfel.”) 

A. Figure 1 on the sketch shows the final reamed-out hole, l^g-inch diameter, 
and two badly punched holes eleven-sixteenths-inch diameter, which are so 
badly punched that the hole will just about clean up. This would be an 
extreme case in favor of the argument of using the eleven-sixteenths-inch 
holes. 

Mr. Goldmark. Yes. 

Mr. Wolfel. In that case the overlap of those holes would only be five- 
sixteenths inch; and how in the world could five-eighths-inch bolts be gotten 
through there? 

Figure 2 shows what, in good practice, we aimed for, to have the holes 
clean up all around; I assume one-sixteenth inch; it shows the hole 1^-inch 
diameter in the final finished work and two eleven-sixteenths-inch holes which 
have a common diameter of fifteen-sixteenths-inch holes, making a fifteen- 
sixteenths-inch appearance all around. Even there the overlap is only eleven- 
sixteenths inch, and five-eights-inch bolts were out of the question. 

Now, I have discussed the thing with Mr. Hammer on several occasions; 
and Mr. Hammer has never told me that he wanted the small holes used, but 
the only answer I have been able to get from Mr. Hammer was (p. 212) that 
he might take it up with the Isthmus—the question of going back to the larger 
holes. 

And there I dropped it, because he did it in a cool and reluctant way; and I 
did not know whether he would recommend the acceptance or rejection of my 
request. I did the same way with Mr. McClintic and Mr. Marshall, but I 
never was able to have them take action so that we should go back to (p. 213) 
larger holes. Why, I guess they could explain themselves best. 

Mr. Goldmark. Mr. Wolfel, assuming that in the eleven-sixteenths-inch 
holes the diameter was a proper diameter, for a seven-eighths-inch rivet, why 
was it also adopted for the 1-inch rivet, where it evidently is a much more 
excessive reduction in size? The two do not work together. 

Mr. Wolfel. You just hit the nail on the head. It is the same argument I 
was using all the time; and here is the correspondence sketch for seven- 
eighths-inch rivets with an eleven-sixteenths-inch hole; and I stated to Mr. 
Hammer and Mr. Marshall. “ Now, if you want eleven-sixteenths-inch holes for 
seven-eighths-inch rivets, what is the use of insisting upon eleven-sixteenths- 
inch holes for 1-inch rivets, when the conditions- 

Judge Harrah (interposing). Wait a minute. That will be Exhibit 67. 

(The sketch last referred to was marked “Exhibit 67, Wolfel.”) 

Mr. Wolfel (continuing). “When the condition in the 1-inch rivets is en¬ 
tirely different from the condition on the seven-eighths-inch rivets?” Ex¬ 
hibit 67 is the corresponding drawing for a seven-eighths-inch rivet. 

Mr. Marshall. When this matter first came up .with Mr. Wolfel and our¬ 
selves Mr. Wolfel realized that the success of that work would largely depend 
upon the ability to bolt it up tightly; he time and time again forced that 
opinion on all of us; and that was one of his reasons for favoring the 1-inch 
holes, so that we could get seven-eighths-inch bolts. He also pointed out to 
us time and time again the foolishness of (p. 214) punching these small holes; 
and the work on the Isthmus demonstrated the fact that he was correct in 
the statement that it would be practically impossible to bolt that work up 
with five-eighths-inch bolts tight enough to drive proper rivets. 

I afterwards—I think it was on my first trip to the Isthmus—took up with 
Mr. Goldmark this matter of punching the small holes, and he (p. 214) agreed 
with me that it seemed to be foolish; and after discussing the matter he cabled 
to Mr. Hammer, telling him to allow us to punch the larger sized holes; and 

29249°—H. Doc. 906, 64-1-9 




130 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


I at the same time cabled to Rankin. We started out to punch the larger 
holes on the next contract; but the work had proceeded only a short distance— 
I think the first contract—until we were ordered to change them back to 
the small hole. 

Mr. Wolfel. Pardon me; I do not believe you can quite say we were ordered 
to change them hack to the small holes, but we were requested to change them 
back to the small holes; we were not ordered; we were only requested or ad¬ 
vised. I have the correspondence here. I would make it a little milder. 

Judge Harrah. Mr. Marshall, this direction from Mr. Pendergrass is dated 
February 23, 1911. Now, if Mr. Wolfel had called your attention to this matter 
immediately thereafter, and insisted that it would be essential to good work 
and easy bolting up, and easy erection on the Isthmus, to have these holes as 
originally specified in the specification, and as provided for in the modifications 
to the specifications, why was it that you failed to take this matter up in an 
official way with Mr. Goldmark or others in authority (p. 215) until you went 
to the Isthmus? 

Mr. Marshall. I think the matter was left entirely in Mr. Hammer’s hands, 
and I think it was entirely due to Mr. Hammer’s instructions. 

Judge Harrah. You do not seem to get my question: Why did you neglect 
to take it up after being advised of the seriousness of having to punch these 
small holes from February, 1911, until about December, 1911? 

Mr. Marshall. We were continually taking it up with Mr. Hammer. 

Judge Harrah. You were taking it up with Mr. Hammer? 

Mr. Marshall. We were taking it up with Mr. Hammer continually. 

Judge Harrah. Verbally? 

Mr. Marshall. Verbally and otherwise. Of course, after we had decided 
to go ahead and punch the small holes, the matter rested until later on. 

Judge Harrah. I do not think you have fully answered my question yet, as 
to why you did not take it up with with Mr. Goldmark before that. 

Mr. Marshall. I do not know why we did not take it up. 

Judge Harrah. Had you had any complaints from Mr. Jewel? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes; is not there correspondence with Mr. Jewel? 

Mr. Wolfel. Yes; there is correspondence with Mr. Jewel. 

Mr. Marshall. Mr. Goldmark, do you remember whether Mr. Jewel had 
taken it up with you. 

Mr. Goldmark. Oh, yes, Mr. Jewel had taken it up with me; I mean he had 
objected to the small holes. I do not know just when, but a number of times 
he had said that those small holes were a very great detriment to his work. 
But not in writing; never in writing. 

Judge Harrah. If you were satisfied that the small holes were damaging 
you and making the work of erection, including the bolting up and the riveting 
and everything else, much more expensive, what was your special reason for 
not going further than Mr. Hammer and trying to get relieved from that 
situation? 

Mr. Marshall. Well, I think we had pretty near reached the point where we 
were convinced that we could not get any relief from Mr. Hammer, and that 
we could not go over Mr. Hammer’s head. I came here to see Capt. Boggs. 
He told me we had to take it up with the Isthmus, and whenever any question 
came up between Mr. Hammer and ourselves, and it was referred to the Isth¬ 
mus—in regard to the drawings, the inspection, or otherwise—it was always 
referred back to Mr. Hammer. 

Mr. Wolfel. Can I say one word here? Now, I did not want to give you the 
impression that the seriousness of that matter drawned on me as soon as I 
heard the first time about the small holes. I never liked the idea, but, like all 
our engineering matters, by and by they grow on your mind. It probably took 
me three or four months before I realized what the thing meant; and that is 
the time I got busy and made those sketches. It is pretty hard to see every¬ 
thing at once; at least, my mind is not built that way; I am not perfect. 

Mr. Goldmark. Mr. Wolfel, for these 1-inch rivets, you realize that if you 
had punched seven-eighths-inch holes, according to the specifications, you could 
not have used anything larger than seven-eighths-inch bolts, do you not (p. 217) ? 

Mr. Wolfel. No; the seventh-eighths-incli rivets you had in the light stuff; 
on the upstream side above the air chamber, and on the downstream side it was 
all light stuff. But when you came to the upstream side in the air chamber, 
where you had thick metal, four thicknesses of 1-inch metal, you had to have 
something better. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


131 


Judge Harrah. The 1-inch metal in four thicknesses, you had a modification 
allowing you to use 1-inch rivets? 

Mr. Wolfel. Yes; 1 inch. I was as sorry as I could be. I after everybody - 

Mr. Goldmark (interposing). There were not four thicknesses of 1 inch. 
One is 1 inch and one is three-fourths inch; but there were four thicknesses. 

Judge Harrah. One thickness of 1-inch stuff? 

Mr. Goldmark. Yes, sir; the others are a little less than 1 inch. 

Judge Harrah. The four thicknesses were all rather heavy material? 

Mr. Goldmark. Undoubtedly, in some places. 

Judge Harrah. And that would have to be drawn together close enough so 
as to prevent the chipping from the reams getting between the plates? 

Mr. Wolfel. Before they could draw together, in quite a large number of 
cases—Mr. Sterrett can tell you that (p. 218)—they simply “busted” the bolts; 
they put big wrenches on the bolts and broke them ; they could not draw it to¬ 
gether. 

Mr. Goi.1)mark. That is true. 

Mr. Wolfel. Now, what always impressed itself upon me so futile in the 
transaction was that if that work was so bad that we ought to use the eleven- 
sixteenths-inch holes, you could not have done anything in the field, because 
you could not have bolted up the eleven-sixteenths-inch holes. 

Mr. Goldmark. No; if you could use five-eighths-inch bolts in the eleven- 
sixteenths-inch holes, the work was all right. 

Mr. Wolfel. That is what I was coming to. Mr. Dumville and Mr. Bell¬ 
ringer enlarge upon our applying the five-eighths-inch bolts in the eleven-six¬ 
teenths-inch holes. 

Mr. Goldmark. That has never been doubted. 

Judge Harrah. On February 23, when this change appears to have been 
suggested by Mr. Hammer and directed by Mr. Pendergrass, had you erected 
any part of the 54-foot 8-inch leaves? 

Mr. Wolfel. Well, this is covered by what I stated before, that in Mr. 
Guynn’s report of March 1 to Mr. Hammer he states that “on January 2S, 
1911, we started to erect the first section of that leaf, and stopped work on 
February 15, on the erection of it.” 

Q. Were you present at the time they were doing that erecting work there?— 
A. I was present off and on, and I recollect Mr. Hammer was very much 
alarmed about how the holes came. 

Q. The apparent reason for which appears to have been the failure of the 
holes to match up?—A. As perfectly as Mr. Hammer wished it (p. 219). 

Q. That seems to be the basis of it?—A. That is the basis of the whole 
trouble. 

Mr. Goldmark. Both in the regular shopwork and in the erection. 

By Judge Harrah: 

Q. That condition had been developed in the shop before any of that corre¬ 
spondence took place?—A. Which correspondence do you refer to? 

Q. I refer to those letters of February 23, 1911. Mr. Hammer’s letter in which 
he suggests that they use the small holes, and Mr. Pendergrass’s letter which 
you introduced saying the small holes would be used.—A. Yes; because the 
work was stopped February 15. 

Mr. Sterrett. In the testimony taken on the Isthmus, Mr. Dumville, who 
was chief inspector for the Commission at Gatun, was testifying, and in his di¬ 
rect examination I asked him this question: 

“ Q. What would you say from your experience with lock-gate work; do 
you think the small holes were justified? Do you think it was necessary to 
punch the material small in order to get satisfactory work (p. 219), as called 
for in the specifications? That is, could the work have been successfully done 
using a larger hole?—A. Yes. I th'nk it could; I am sure it could.” 

Under his cross-examination, Mr. Rousseau said to him: 

“ I want to know the maximum size bolts that the contractor had or could 
have used, even if this material had not been punched three-fourths and seven- 
eighths inch.—A. I believe that, owing to the accuracy with which (p. 220) the 
shopwork was done in this job, it was possible to erect the lock gates with full- 
sized holes and not get any very bad results.” 

That is, punch the hole one-sixteenth inch larger than the rivet. That is the 
way they do on ship work. 



132 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


Judge Harrah. I do not think that is exactly material, because you certainly 
would not claim that you had the right to punch the holes any larger than as 
called for in the original specifications. 

Mr. Sterrett. I just bring that in to show the accuracy of the shopwork. 

Mr. Wolfel. We have more testimony on that. 

Judge Harrah. On what? 

Mr. Wolfel. On the good fitting of the holes in the field. 

Judge Harrah. That was all gone over on the Isthmus. 

Mr. Wolfel. Except that it is likely to be overlooked in a great mass of testi¬ 
mony ; and if you put in a few statements here about the work on the Isthmus, 
about how close the work fitted, it would show clearly to everybody that this use 
of the small holes was not called for, and it is especially material- 

Judge Harrah (interposing). I hardly think it is necessary to repeat that in 
the record here, as to what was testified to down there. Now, if you know 
anything about the matter and how the erection work was going up from being 
down there and seeing it, I would be very glad to have you state that. 

Mr. Wolfel. I will not testify about that, because (p. 221) others know better 
about it. 

It will be noted that this testimony was given in the presence of 
Mr. Henry Goldmark, and it will be noted also that it contains an 
explanation by Mr. Marshall, president of the McClintic-Marshall 
Construction Co., giving the reasons why a change was made to the 
small holes. 

Attention is also called to the statement made by Mr. Wolfel (see 
next to last paragraph on p. 100 of this report) to the effect that he 
did not at first appreciate the seriousness of the small holes. 

Mr. Wolf el’s testimony, therefore, must be viewed in the light of 
this explanation. The sketches which he made and which appear 
as exhibits 66 and 67 to illustrate the effects of the small holes must 
be considered as having been made subsequent to the time that it was 
determined to punch the small holes. 

The above testimony shows pretty clearly that Mr. Hammer 
thought it was necessary to reduce the size of the holes in order that 
the holes might clean up when reamed out. It also shows that Mr. 
Hammer first suggested the use of small holes in order to secure the 
accuracy in the work that he was demanding. It also shows that the 
McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. understood that it would be 
necessary for them to reduce the size of the holes in order that they 
might be reasonably certain of meeting the demands being made upon 
them by Mr. Hammer as to the accuracy with which the holes should 
be spaced. In connection with the accuracy demanded by Mr. Ham¬ 
mer, attention is invited to the testimony of Mr. John Ostrom hereto¬ 
fore quoted. 

In connection with the examination of Mr. Crane, Mr. Wolfel ex¬ 
plains what preparations were made in order to properly fabricate 
this material and gives some of the reasons why they had difficulty 
with the work in the beginning. The statement of Mr. Wolfel, to¬ 
gether with the statement of Mr. Crane in response to his questions is, 
for easy reference, quoted below (p. 120, General Examination No. 5, 
vol. No. 5) : 

Mr. Wolfel. Now, Mr. Crane, you have stated that the work on the lock gates 
was not as good as work our company had done for you previously, and after the 
contract of the lock gates was taken in hand and went through?—A. Yes. 

Q. You have also referred there to the Pennsylvania Tunnel and terminal 
work and to the Hell Gate bridge work?—A. Yes. 

Q. You have also given as a plausible explanation of that—well, to make it 
suit your ideas, poor workmanship—the fact that the contractor was a low-priced 
contract, and that the work was trying to be gotten out as economically as 
possible?—A. Yes. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


133 


Q. Those statements are in accordance with the facts there?—A. Yes. 

Q. All right; you are familiar with all our plants previous to the lock-gate 
contract?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you ever work at the Carnegie plant?—A. I worked at the American 
Bridge Co. 

Q. At our Carnegie plant?—A. At your Carnegie plant? No; I am not 
familiar with it. 

Q. Are you familiar with the Pottstown shops in 1910?—A. Yes. 

Q. Of our shops at Rankin previous to 1910?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. From your knowledge of these shops, are you willing to admit that our 
shop No. 2 is the best equipped shop we have?—A. Yes; I think No. 2 is the 
best equipped shop; yes. 

Q. I suppose you are aware of the fact that the shop No. 2, immediately pre¬ 
vious to the lock-gate contract, has turned out some of the most important work, 
like the Winner Bridge, of Kansas City, of 18,000 tons, and the Beaver Bridge, 
at Pittsburgh, and Lake Erie, of 17,000 tons; that this work was of such a 
character that it not only was of national but of world-wide importance? 
You know the Beaver Bridge was probably for months in the Engineering 
Record and Engineering News, and in London Engineering, in German and 
French papers?—A. Yes. 

Q. And everbody commented on that work as being of the highest char¬ 
acter?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now, you realize that the same men that did build those bridges were 
put on the lock gates? You understand that?—A. Yes; I understand that. 

Q. You understand that the same equipment that was available for those 
bridges was put on the lock gates?—A. Yes. 

Q. You realize that after the lock-gate contract was taken, and before a stroke 
of work was done, the equipment that had previously done all this fine work 
was radically changed by adding pickling plants, sand blasts, by buying some 
of the best planers that money could buy, by installing those American milling 
machines with the fine adjustment, where every degree of temperature could be 
taken care of by the installment of a smoothing plant?—A. Yes. 

Q. By every tool in that shop being overhauled so it could work with the 
utmost precision?—A. Yes. 

Q. From memory, we spent between seventy-six and seven thousand dollars 
to improve that shop, to be ready for the markets. Now, furthermore, you 
are familiar with the supplementary agreement of August 8, 1910?—A. Yes. 

Q. There are about 36 counts in there, and after going over 12 counts on 
page 15 of the supplementary (p. 123) agreement—let me say one thing first, 
here. I want to add that all these 36 changes were practically all made at 
my request, with the exception of one or two, like the doubling plates, 
which were made by Mr. Goldmark, as he thought his plans were efficient. 
Now, after going over those changes, I have worked in this supplement or 
appendix that says all these changes were made for the benefit of the work, 
at large expenditure—as far as we can figure, amounting to $150,000 to 
$180,000. Now, this figure at that time was only a guess, based on my judg¬ 
ment, but since then our engineer at Rankin made careful assessments of that, 
and I find, if anything, I was low. Of course, I want to state that while this 
was extra expenses, he did or did expect to get some things. 

Judge Harrah, What is the object of that? 

Mr. Wolfel. I want to see whether Mr. Crane is justified in making the 
statement that that is caused by our trying—having taken the work low and 
trying to economize in the work. I want to show that we went to any amount 
of expenditure to do the work first class. Now, with all that before you, do 
you still feel like maintaining that your statement was correct.—A. I do, most 
positively; yes, sir. 

Q. You do? Then I have nothing more to say about this. You stated about 
the causes of the trouble in the work. There are some things that I have 
noticed you have not mentioned (p. 124). Do you realize, when you compare 
that work with the tunnel and terminal work and with the Hell Gate work, 
you realize that the lock-gate work was a work as important? Austin points 
out they had to work for three dimensions in bridge work. The work on girders 
is to one dimension; in the other work to two dimensions. Here is a class 
of work that had to be exact as to length, width, and height. It is a difficult 
thing to obtain. 

Judge Harrah. You are talking about the lock-gate work? 


134 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


Mr. Wolfel. The lock-gate work. You have the same condition as to shop- 
work, only there you do not have to maintain the same conditions. Here it 
had to be maintained. Do you not think that in this one condition alone is 
a much more reasonable reason for the difficulty in that work than in that 
broad statement that you made—that the work was troublesome because we 
tried to economize? 

Mr. Crane. No ; we all admit that it was work peculiar in itself and very 
different. 

Mr. Wolfel. Is it not that one cause of the trouble there, a cause that never 
entered into your tunnel work and in your Hell Gate work? 

A. It might with the work that we had with you, but it was not with the 
other. 

Q. Are you referring to our work?—A. I am referring to your work; yes, sir. 

Q. Furthermore, as I look at the work, one of the things that caused us most 
trouble was to get the work correct at the ends of the girders—of the leafs. 
There you had those sharp curves of thicknesses, three or four times as thick, 
some as large as 1 inch, and to get those holes right did require the utmost 
precision and care and was the most difficult thing in the whole work. 

Mr. Crane. Yes. 

Q. Did you have anything of this nature on the work that you referred to— 
in the tunnel and terminal and Hell Gate work?—A. No; we did not have any 
of that accurate work. 

Q. Do you not think in this other instance there is a more important cause 
than the broad statement you made about our trying to cheapen the work?—A. 
No; the idea is this: When you had that, when you started on that work, I 
think you are frank to admit that you did not appreciate the difficulties of it. 

Mr. Wolfel. We are prepared to show at Rankin, by instructions issued 
to all the shops that we all appreciate the importance and the difficulty and the 
close inspection this work would have. I can not take your word for that. 

Mr. Crane. Very well, then, if you appreciate that, what was the cause or 
reason that Mr. Guynn and Mr. Hammer held up all of that work? 

Mr. Wolfel. Because this was such an extremely difficult and different kind 
of work from any done before that anybody starting in at first on it was up 
against difficult problems, which, of course, might mean in the beginning slight 
deficiencies in the work. 

Mr. Crane. Yes. 

Mr. Wolfel. Now, this is a reasonable, fundamental reason of the difficulty, 
much better that what you have stated. 

Mr. Crane. Yes; further, did you not go on with that work after experiment¬ 
ing on it to find out, and that great quantity of work rushed through before 
Mr. Guynn or anyone started on the inspection of it? 

Mr. Wolfel. How could it be found out before we assembled the leaves? 
Why did not Mr. Hammer find it out? We went ahead in the best of faith. 

Mr. Crane. I know we could when I got on the work. I had to judge with the 
work before me. 

Mr. Wolfel. I know, Mr. Crane, but those main reasons you have passed by, 
and did you not know about those, and you say the work was bad because we 
bid low and tried to economize? 

Mr. Crane. That is our place. 

Mr. Wolfel. Certainly it is your business. Any shop would do that, but that 
should be no explanation (p. 127) of the difficulties, or reflection, when those 
other difficulties are so broad and so clear in everybody’s mind. 

Mr. Goldmark asked permission to correct some of the statements that had 
been made in his report, General Exhibit 1, volume 1. The corrections made 
are shown in the testimony quoted below (p. 14) : 

On page 65 of my report it says, at the second paragraph from the top: 

“As a matter of fact, the matter had been taken up by Mr. Hammer with the 
contractors before my arrival.” 

I will explain that that refers to the fitting of certain rivet holes. 

“ The method of doing the shopwork had been gone over thoroughly and work 
had almost stopped for two to three weeks on that account. I beiieve I was 
informed at the time that the contractors had decided to punch the holes eleven- 
sixteenths inch for all rivets and to use steel instead of wooden templets. I 
never understood that Mr. Hammer or any of our inspectors ordered these 
changes, and 1 understood that the contractors had adopted them of their own 
accord to get better work. I find nothing on the subject in the correspondence.” 

While that statement is, I believe, entirely correct as it stands, I would prob¬ 
ably not have written it quite as strongly if I had seen the correspondence with 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 135 


Mr Hammer, in which he suggests the holes being punched smaller, in his letter 
of February 23, 1911. 

Q. Is that as far as you want to go in changing that?—A. Yes, sir. I see 
nothing in that that is not correct; I did understand just what I said there. I 
should like to say that the matter was a verbal statement to me from Mr. Ham¬ 
mer that these changes had been made; and the impression I got from Mr. 
Hammer was that it was a voluntary change by the contractors; but Mr. 
Hammer is sometimes a little hard to understand, and I now feel that that 
conclusion that they adopted it voluntarily is too strongly put; it may have been 
that Mr. Hammer ordered it; I do not know. 

Q. Would you not think that it was more accurate, in view of the letter, to 
say that it may have been that Mr. Hammer suggested it, rather than ordered 
it- A- Well, from that one letter, I think so; but, of course, he may have 
directed it verbally; I do not know. 

Judge Harrah. Do you want to ask any questions on that point, Mr. Wolfel? 

Mr. Wolfel. No, Judge; that is all right. 

Mr. Goldmark. The next is in the middle of page 6(5. I do not suppose it is 
necessary to read that whole discussion. 

Judge Harrah. No. The middle paragraph or what? 

Mr. Goldmark. No, sir. “ Whatever the reason for adopting the eleven- 
sixteentlis-inch holes,” I think that paragraph is correct; and I do not want 
to change that next paragraph. But when you get to the top of page 67, in the 
middle of that paragraph- 

Judge Harrah. Please state just exactly the particular sentence to which you 
refer. 

Mr. Goldmark. “ I do not think the statement made by the contractors that 
this return to small holes was another unreasonable demand of the inspectors 
can be sustained. Mr. Price’s evidence should be of value on this point. I never 
knew of any of the details on this subject.” 

Q. How do you want to change that?—A. And then the whole of the next 
paragraph, reading: 

“ I am inclined to think that the necessity of the small holes arises partly 
from the fact that the chord angles were bent cold, in a bulldizer, and that the 
irregular amount of stretching changed the position of the rivet holes, since 
they were punched before bending the angles. At any rate, experience seemed 
clearly to indicate that on these lock-gate girders good results could not be ob¬ 
tained with holes larged than eleven-sixteenths inch, even with careful shop 
work, at least for seven-eighths rivets.” 

I do not think that I had enough evidence that experience indicated that to 
make so positive a statement. I feel now that I do not yet know why those 
changes back to the eleven-sixteenths-inch holes were made in the shop, 
and I think my personal knowledge on the matter of returning to the smaller 
(p. 17) holes is not sufficient now and was not then to warrant so strong an 
expression of opinion. 

This is the only correction that Mr. Goldmark made in his report with refer¬ 
ence to the punching of the holes. 

On pages 29, 30, and 31 of his testimony Mr. Goldmark gives his reasons for 
recommending Mr. Hammer’s appointment. 

By Judge Harrah. Turn to to page 199 of your report. (It will he noted here 
that the letter of August 8, 1910, from Mr. Goldmark to Mr. Hammer is copied 
at page 199 of Mr. Goldmark’s report.) 

Did you give Mr. Hammer any verbal instructions as to the rules that were 
to he observed in making the inspection of this material and the general prin¬ 
ciples that were to be followed in interpreting the specifications?—A. I do not 
think so. Mr. Hammer had been engaged on the work in detail, made the 
greater part of the drawings, and had assisted me in getting up the specifi¬ 
cations from October, 1907, until that time. He was fully familiar with every 
point involved, and I do not remember what I said to him in addition to turning 
over to him this letter and the agreement; we probably talked over some things, 
but I do not remember that at that time I said much to him. 

Q. After some general statements bearing on the last paragraph of page 22 of 
the claim, which paragraph is followed on page 23 with what purports to be a 
report of the experience of Mr. Hammer, we find this statement: 

“Mr. Goldmark, in his eagerness to obtain the very best for the commission, 
and with the quite natural pride a designing engineer takes in his work, also 
possibly on account of his knowledge of the inexperience of the assistant en¬ 
gineer put in charge, often, by word of mouth and in correspondence, stated that 
no other but perfect work would be accepted. 



136 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO 


Did you make such statements as that to Mr. Hammer, either without the 
knowledge of the claimant or in the presence of representatives of the claim¬ 
ant?—A. I do not remember doing so. On the contrary, I remember accepting 
certain work that the inspectors had refused as not being perfect. I remember 
at least one occasion in which I told them that they were too severe aind di¬ 
rected them to accept a rejected plate. I may have said so; I do not now re¬ 
member the occasion. 

Q. Would you have made such a statement to the assistant engineer on ac¬ 
count of his known inexperience to you?—A. No, sir; I certainly would not 
have. I can not say that I would have. 

Q. On page 20 of your report, under the head of “ Claim 2-B,” page 15, you 
state in relation to the shop experience of Mr. Hammer that: 

“ I was fully aware of this in recommending his appointment ”—meaning 
that he had had no previous shop experience—“ I felt satisfied, however, that 
he would give satisfaction in this position, and I feel now that no other man 
under the conditions could have possibly taken his place.” On what informa¬ 
tion do you base that statement?—A. The first statement—“I felt satisfied”? 

Q. Yes.—A. Well, I had had Mr. Hammer with me for several years, and 
a number of matters had come up outside of the lock gates, which I had dis¬ 
cussed with him; and I felt sure that he was rather ingenious in mechanical 
matters. I think when he was with the New York Foundry Co., he had to 
get up some rather ingenious contrivances in connection with the air locks, 
and I got the impression, wrongly or rightly, that he was of a mechanical mind, 
which some engineers never are—never become. And I thought that he would 
fill the bill. And I also felt—I think that the next sentence is, perhaps, a little 
too strong—when I say that no other man under the conditions could have 
possibly taken his place, I mean that I say now on the Isthmus he could 
have filled it, and it would have been a mistake to bring in as the head man 
some entirely new person, possibly much more gifted than Mr. Hammer, who 
did not understand these particular plans; and I think it is also proper to 
say that at that time 1 fully expected to be in Pittsburgh with him for a 
considerable period of time; that I went so far as to almost engage a house 
in Pittsburgh for my family in order to be there during the succeeding winter, 
and help in the organization of these inspection plans; and that that was one 
of the reasons why Mr. Hammer was selected and why he was not given another 
assistant of high grade in the line of engineering work. 

I did not go back to Pittsburgh, but was obliged to ^tay on the Isthmus; and 
after that the matter was left in Mr. Hammer’s hands, and such assistance 
as he needed was given to him from time to time. I always regretted that I 
was not there during that formative period. 

On page 32, Mr. Goldmark stated that he thought Mr. Hammer 
would be inclined to be more severe in inspection than he would. The 
questions and answers quoted below give Mr. Goldmark’s opinion as 
to the action that was taken by Mr. Hammer in connection with the 
rivet holes in the first eight leaves: 

Q. Did you find from personal experience with Mr. Hammer, in connection 
with the execution of this contract, that he was inclined, where a matter was 
left to his judgment as to what would be first-class workmanship, to make 
close decisions against the contractor?—A. I had little opportunity of observing 
that directly. I was only there once or twice, and I had to agree with him 
in his main contentions. I did ultimately relax the specifications somewhat in 
passing some of the material; but I can not say, in the main, things that he 
could very well, as far as I know—I do not know, that is, about it—have 
passed those things without question (sic). 

Q. Can you give some specific instance to illustrate the point?—A. Well, 
only a question in which I think there was a great deal of trouble—that is, in 
connection with the fitting of the rivets, the rivet holes, in the first eight 
leaves. I happened to be in the country, and was asked to go out there and 
examine the leaves with Mr. Hammer and others, and they were not as good 
as they should be; and Mr. Hammer was (p. 33) puzzled as to what he had 
better do. He had shipped 66 of those girders, which he thought would pass, 
I never saw those. The girders, which were in the yard, we examined together, 
and it was rather hard to arrive at a conclusion, '.'hey certainly were not 
as good as they should have been; Mr. Hammer was much worried; but, I 
think, I would have felt just about the same as he did about those particular 



McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


137 


girders. I can not say but what I had approval for what he had done in 
that matter at that time. J do not see that he could have done any other way. 

It will be noted from this statement that Mr. Goldmark examined the girders 
which were in the yard with Mr. Hammer. It will also be noted that he stated: 

“ I think I would have felt just about the same as he did about those par¬ 
ticular girders. I can not say but what I had approval of what he had done in 
that matter at that time. I do not see that he could have done any other way.” 

On page 33, Mr. Goldmark was asked this question: 

Q. What was the condition of the organization when you were in Pittsburgh 
in May?—A. In March? 

Q. In May; do you remember you went there?—A. I was there twice; once 
in April and once in May, I think; I have the dates here. 

Why, it was by no means good. I was in the South here on my annual leave, 
and Maj. Boggs telegraphed me to come up here, and took me out to Pittsburgh 
with him, and, as I recollect, Col. Hodges. At the time the organization of the 
inspection force was not in good shape; there was discontent. The chief in¬ 
spector had resigned, and complained of Mr. Hammer, and the inspectors were 
measuring and remeasuring, and I did not like their spirit toward the work 
altogether, or toward the Contractor; and I have no hesitation in saying that 
at that time something was wrong. I have always laid it to Mr. Hammer’s 
being altogether overworked, and to these troubles that had come up in con¬ 
nection with the riveting. I think the men tried to do good work, the inspectors 
who were there, but evidently they were not well handled at that time. There 
was something wrong; there was more or less heedlessness; I was not pleased 
at all. 

Q. How was that affecting the work of the Contractor at that time, if you 
were able to tell?—A. Well, at that time they had had that trouble with the 
rivets—with those rivet holes in the first eight leaves—and if I am not mis¬ 
taken, I was told that they had practically done nothing for several weeks in 
the attempt to get up some method by which they could succeed in having those 
girders and additional girders passed. The inspectors were not properly led; 
the chief inspector did not seem to (p. 35) be the chief inspector. The work 
seemed to be done by individual inspectors, all of whom had a good deal to 
talk about and to say; and I do not know positively, but I do not doubt that 
that had a bad effect on the shop. 

Q. Well, was there very much material that had been fabricated and was 
ready for inspection in the yards at the time that you were there?—A. Oh, yes; 
there was a good deal; but it was held for a decision largely on those first 
eight leaves, as the result of erecting one leaf. They could not ship it. Mr. 
Hammer had stretched his conscience a little, as it was, shipping 66 girders; 
and I never understood that, strictly speaking, according to the specifications, he 
should not have shipped those 66 girders; but I believe, so as I recollect it— 
I know there was a good deal of stuff piled up in the yard and a good deal had 
been measured, and remeasured and remeasured, and no decision had been 
arrived at by anybody; and ultimately more piled up; and it was several 
months before the matter was fully straightened up and the stuff shipped out. 

Q. Well, in view of the conditions that you found there, that you have de¬ 
scribed, what steps did you take to remedy that condition?—A. Well, the first 
thing I did was to hire Mr. Price, as chief inspector, to go there and organize 
the force; and I also recommended an increase of the force, directly or indi¬ 
rectly, to Maj. Boggs, who had more or less to say about the appointment of 
men. And I also instructed Mr. Hammer, I think verbally, to leave that— 
perhaps not to leave that—but to use Mr. Price, and to have Price act as a 
true chief inspector; and I think I told Mr. Price that he was the man that I 
wanted to run that inspection, and to have the men divided over different parts 
of the work, each having his part, etc., which I think was done. 

Q. Did you at that time give Mr. Hammer any instructions as to the princi¬ 
ples that should be applied in the inspection?—A. Well, I do not remember 
exactly. But I think I told Mr. Hammer, not only then, but at other times, 
to be as reasonable as he could; that there were certain things that were very 
important, and in going over the matter with Mr. Hammer and Mr. Price—for 
instance, the A frames at the end—I told them that there was a place where 
they could not be too particular, hardly; and that there were other places 
where such very great accuracy was not necessary. Of course, I did not want 
to interfere in details; I was only up there by accident, so to speak, for a 
few days at a time; and I thought I had the matter in shape to get well in 
hand; and I think it was in hand after a certain amount of time, as they got 


138 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


inspectors gradually. It was by no means easy to get authority for additional 
inspectors. 

Q. Was your attention called to the fact that at that time the contractor was 
making steel templets to check up that work in the yards?—A. Oh, yes—well, I 
do not think that was to check up the work in the yard erected; I understood 
that they would use steel templets in all future work; that all plates and 
angles in originally laying them off in the shop they would use steel 
templets instead of wooden templets; and it may have been that they would 
also use them for checking up certain girders. You must not forget that the 
material in the yard—the only material that I know of—was the girders. 

Now, in the girders a great many rivets are driven in the shop, and you 
can not do any more checking, and do not need any more checking; then there 
were certain holes reamed to size for connecting certain frames and dia¬ 
phragms ; then there were other holes in the angle flanges which connect 
to plates in the field, and were small holes; those were measured with 
tapes in my presence by our inspectors and the contractor’s inspectors, by Mr. 
Hammer and by myself, and I think by Mr. McClintic; and no two hole 
measurements agreed. But still, it would seem that they were not quite 
correct. The steel templets I do not remember coming up exactly in that 
connection. 

Q. You say no two measurements agreed. What would be the reason for 
that, if they had the same line and the same surface?—A. Well, they were 65 
feet long, and the tape may have been a little different in temperature; and it 
was on a curvel surface; and it was a peculiar fact that the contractor’s 
measurement always seemed to be a little better than our measurements or 
the inspectors’ measurements; and it was by no means easy to measure these 
things very closely. 

Q. Well, would you attribute the fact that the contractor’s measurements 
appeared to be better than your measurements to the fact that the contractor’s 
inspectors were more experienced?—A. I do not know. I satisfied myself that 
it was not so awfully easy to measure every single rivet from a true center and 
be certain just where it was on that curved surface. I do not know. It is 
perfectly fair to say that I think in some cases our inspectors had some little 
personal feeling in the matter, and they were rather glad when they found 
things were out, and naturally the other man was glad that he was right. I 
gathered from all the conclusions in all the measurements, our measurements, 
my measurements there, and also very much from observing those same holes 
after they were erected in the gates that were up there, that a great many 
of those holes on the curved surfaces were not as good as they ought to be; 
and I was quite certain, I think, that they were not as good as" they ought to 
be. And I say I have always known that there was a great deal of difference 
of opinion as to the measuring on those curved surfaces. 

Q. During the time that you were there, or prior to that time, had any ques¬ 
tion arisen—or was it a question—as to the size of the holes that were to be 
punched—ever been mentioned to you?—A. Before I got there? 

Q. Before you got there or while you were there?—A. It was not mentioned 
to me betore I got there, but while I was there Mr. Hammer told me that it 
had been decided to punch the holes eleven-sixteenths of an inch, and I got the 
impression from him that it was the contractor’s voluntary decision. I got 
that as a general impression that I have carried with me" ever since, but 1 
do not know that Mr. Hammer said so in so many words. 

I would also say that at the time it never occurred to me that that small 
hole—eleven-sixteenths of an inch—would apply to those girders that connected 
to 1-inch sheathing plates—or, in other words, that it would apply for 1-inch 
rivets. And when the first girders came down to the Isthmus and I found that 
the 1-inch rivets had eleven-sixteenths of an inch holes, I was very much 
astonished. I was always under the impression that it was one of the things 
that the contractor had done, and I never protested, and I am perfectly willing 
to confess that I did not realize that it would make so much trouble in bolting 
up as it did. But I certainly never protested. I always thought that the 
punching of those small holes was unnecessary—at least, I always thought that 
the punching of the small holes for the 1-inch rivets was unnecessary, and I 
still think so. 

The punching of the eleven-sixteenths of an inch holes for the seven-eighths, 
of an inch rivets was only a decrease in size of one-sixteenth of an inch. And 
I always thought that was unnecessary until the change was made back to the 
larger holes. Then it was reported to me that they simply could not get good 


McCLlNTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


139 


rivets with the larger holes in the shop even. And, while I have never been 
able to understand (p. 40) it, I gradually came to the conclusion that there 
was something peculiar about this work which required the small holes. 

But the fitting of the rivet holes after the first eight gates was so beautiful— 
was so nearly perfect—that I wondered why on earth they punched them with 
the small holes. When Mr. Jewel asked me to change them, I said, “ By all 
means,” and then, as you know, they changed them, and they reported "from 
Pittsburgh that it would not do, and they changed them back without telling 
me very much about it. 

Q. Did you discuss the matter at any length with Mr. Hammer at that time, 
or was it merely a statement made by Mr. Hammer and acquiesced in by you?— 
A. That is all—a statement of Mr. Hammer’s acquiesced in by me. 

Q. Was the subject of small holes ever brought to your attention by any 
representative of the contractor while you were in Pittsburgh at that time?— 
A. I do not remember distinctly; but I think either Mr. Marshall or Mr. Mc- 
Olintic told me they were going to do it, or had started to do it; but I would 
not swear to that. 

May I make one addition? 

Judge Harrah. Yes. 

Mr. Goldmark. In saying what I did about the condition of the inspection 
force at that time, I would like to say that I think individually they were very 
good men, indeed, and were kept on; I think it was a matter of organization 
entirely; I think all of those men were exceptionally good men. 

Q. Is it not a fact that, whatever might have been the cause, if the organiza¬ 
tion was in the condition that you describe it would hamper the work of the 
contractor and tend to make it difficult for him to perform his contract?—A. I 
think it could not help doing so to some extent, and I think the force was not 
adequate in numbers until well in the summer of 1911. 

Q. And, without attempting to place the blame for that condition, the fact 
would be that it existed?—A. I have never doubted it? 

Mr. Goldmark explained in his testimony (pp. 119 to 124), quoted below, his 
understanding as to whether or not the specifications followed the usual prac¬ 
tice, and also his understanding as to what would be usual or reasonable re¬ 
quirements in enforcing them. 

Mr. Goldmark. I think my specifications were copies from the 1908 specifi¬ 
cations of the New York Central Railroad, which you have in your requisition 
files here. 

Mr. Sterrett. The contractor does not care what your copies are from; the 
thing is that you did not state what you wanted. 

Mr. Goldmark. If we followed a well-established specification according to 
which the very largest work of one of the largest railroads in the country had 
been done, I think we followed the ordinary practice in our specifications and 
fhe justifiable practice. 

Mr. Sterrett. If you had had the New York Central inspectors under that 
specification on your work it is likely that there would not have been any 
trouble; they would have had experience with it. 

Judge Harrah. Whatever specifications you think will illustrate your views, 
Mr. Wolfel. you may introduce as exhibits to-morrow; and whatever specifica¬ 
tions you think will illustrate your view, Mr. Goldmark, you may introduce. 

Mr. Goldmark. Well, Mr. Wolfel has a lot with him; I have not. But I 
referred in this report to a certain place in Trautwine’s Handbook—that is a 
standard book—and it has in it a statement of all the different specifications 
and what they require. Have you seen that compilation, Mr. Wolfel? 

Mr. Wolfel. Yes; but these things are all more modern. 

Judge Harrah. Are those specifications that you are introducing specifica¬ 
tions which have been gotten up since this work was performed or were they 
specifications in use at the time the work was fully performed or being adver¬ 
tised ? 

Mr. Goldmark. That was after ours were written. 

Mr. Wolfel. Well, these Quebec specifications are dated September, 1911. 

Mr. Goldmark. I am sure they are later than ours, because Mr. Monsarratt 
corresponded with me about certain points and asked me my opinion about 
them when they were writing them. 

I would say that, regardless of any clauses of the specifications which may 
be desirable to get as an assistance to inspectors, the requirement of punching 
the rivet holes one-eighth inch smaller than the nominal diameter of the rivet 
has been established for fully 25 years, and the practice in the shops has been 


140 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


essentially the same during all that time, and the results obtained have been 
practically the same as we get to-day. There have at all times been a small 
number of rivet holes that were mispunched, and they have been corrected 
either by enlarging the hole and making it slightly irregular in shape—which 
is the commonest method—or by reaming the hole out for a larger size of rivet. 
An excessive number of such errors and an excessive amount of error has 
never been permitted, and it seems to me the question is entirely as to how 
much error there was in our rivet holes. 

By Judge Harrah : 

Q. Where a specification does not limit or indicate a rule by which inspectors 
are to be guided in demanding that rivets shall be cut out, or that holes shall 
be reamed in a particular way, would that not leave considerably more latitude 
to the judgment of the individual inspector in passing upon the work?—A. 
Well, I doubt whether it is feasible to lay down such rules, and, as I said a 
little while ago, I think the specifications in that respect agree with a great 
majority of the very best bridge specifications for punched and reamed work. 

Q. Is it the usual practice in enforcing specifications that do not contain 
their own limitations as to the character of the work that must be done under 
those specifications, for the supervising inspector to give instructions to his 
subordinates in immediate charge as to the latitude that will be allowed?—A. 
When the matter comes up, I should say yes. Now, in requiring holes to be 
punched smaller and then reamed larger, there are two things aimed at: One 
is to remove the injured metal, which is always injured by punching. After 
reaming out the bar is stronger, as has been proved in many cases by experi¬ 
ment. I have made some myself. 

The second reason for reaming out is to get a truer hole, so that the rivet 
shall be better, there shall not be irregular jogs or inlets in the rivet itself, 
and that it (p. 122) shall be possible to drive a better rivet, and also, I think, 
to make the test of the rivet as to tightness more certain. 

In other words, if you have a rivet in a very rough hole, it may hang in 
one or two of these rough places in the plate, and when you hit it with a 
hammer it may seem secure. Now, in a perfectly smooth hole, the rivet has 
got to absolutely fill that smooth hole completely, in order to be tight under 
the hammer test. Consequently, my experience has been that, in many cases, 
you get more loose rivets on inspection and condemn more rivets in punched 
and reamed work than you would in rough punched work, simply because the 
roughness around the work holds the rivet so that it does not show the loose¬ 
ness, while it might readily become loose in actual use; and this little slight 
burr might let go of the rivet and you would have a loose rivet. That, in my 
opinion, is one of the reasons for using reamed work, and I do not consider . 
reamed work absolutely necessary to the extent that some engineers do. But 
that is if you use the reamed work, it is to get that result, besides the result 
of not injuring the metal so much. 

Now, in these lock gates, the rivets are in most places in excess of the num¬ 
ber required for strength. We put in most of these rivets for watertightness. 
Also, the material is, in the great majority of places in the gates, in compression 
and not in tension. 

A rivet in compression is not as severely strained, perhaps, as in tension— 

I do not know whether that is exactly (p. 123) right—but I will say that the 
material surrounding a rivet is less severely strained in case any injury is 
caused by the punching. In other words, this removal of a ring around the 
rivet is more important in tension members than in compression members. 
That is what I really wanted to bring out. 

Now, in doing that, you are aiming at removing metal all around; in other 
words, you want the rivets to be punched as accurately as may be in the be¬ 
ginning, and you specify the diameter to which they are subpunched, with 
some regard to the probable error you are going to get in your punching. 1 
do not think it is practicable to lay that down the way they do in the New 
York Central specifications, and I do not know any way, apart from the ex¬ 
perienced judgment of the inspector in any given case, to tell you just how 
wrong you can let them be punched. If you get a number of rivets that are 
subpunched that do not clean up, the punching should be looked after. But 
in the different metals and different parts of a structure, I have never seen 
a rule whereby you can say that you have so many rivets subpunched 
so as to clean up properly. If you get more than a comparatively small num¬ 
ber that are bad, you had better look to your punching and see that it im¬ 
proves. And I will say that when those first gates did not come out as well as 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


141 


I thought they should, I would have looked to better punching, steel templates, 
and that sort of thing—because it can be gotten. Instead of that, the holes 
were punched very much smaller—not on instructions from me. But as to the 
(p. 124) instructions from the inspector as to just how many rivets he is to 
cut out and just how far he is to do it, I think that is a matter of common 
practice in riveting work which it is not necessary to specify—and I do not 
believe it can be specified in figures. 

Mr. Goldmark states on page 1GG of his testimony that “ The rivet holes 
had been punched for eleven-sixteenth-inch for a long time, and the fit of 
those holes was extremely good. They were almost all concentric to the eyes.” 

On page 193, Mr. Goldmark was asked this question: 

Q. Do you think the greater accuracy in the holes secured by the smaller 
punching would in any way compensate for the delay in erection due to in¬ 
creased difficulty in the bolting up and the riveting?—A. Compensate whom? 

Q. Compensate the contractor?—A. I think not. The holes were so very, very 
good that I do not think the question came up at all. In other words, the holes 
were so nearly concentric that if there had not been any reaming at all, we 
would have got very decent work; they were wonderfully cut. 

Q. Was that on the first contract—4845?—A. No; it certainly was not. But 
you said the smaller holes, and they did not have the smaller holes on that. 

Q. But the holes you speak about being so good now, were the holes that 
were made and punched after they had begun to use the steel templates in the 
shop?—A. Yes, sir; after 4847. 

Q. Then with the use of the steel template in the shop you think the holes 
could have been made so accurate that there would have been no difficulty of 
erection in the field?—A. I have never had the slightest doubt on that subject. 
That is the reason I permitted them to go back to larger holes (p. 194). 

Q. Do you think it was easier for the contractor to secure the passing of his 
fabricated material in the shop by reason of the holes being punched eleven- 
sixteenths inch than it would have been if they had been punched in accordance 
with the specifications?—A. Well, my previous answer, I think, was limited to 
the field work. In the shop the inspectors evidently first, and then again later, 
satisfied themselves that they could not get good work with the small holes. 
I have never understood exactly why they could not. 

Q. You do think, however, that the work of erection was delayed and that 
the cost was increased by reason of the punching of the small holes?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

(On page 197 Mr. Goldmark was asked this question:) 

Q. At the time of making such tests as you did make for water-tightness, did 
you find any considerable number of leaks around the rivets?—A. Very few, 
and very unimportant ones—either around the (p. 197) rivets or through the 
joints. Tt was as good as any work that I ever saw of that exact nature. 

Q. You do think we got a good job?—A. Oh. there is no doubt whatsoever. 

Q. Do you not think we got a first-class job?—A. Do you mean this water- 
tightness or the whole thing? 

Q. The whole thing.—A. I think we got the best gates in the world. I tliii k 
the workmanship could not be improved upon. 

Q. Do you think your specifications as drawn were such as to entitle the 
Government to demand such work as would produce the best gates in the 
world? Of course. I understand that the question is a little too broad; it is 
asked more for your judgment on what you think you had a right to demand 
under those specifications.—A. I will say that it has been claimed that the 
specifications in some respects were too general in requiring perfection. I meant 
to word them in such way that we could ask. as far as water-tightness goes, 
as good a job as could be obtained, by taking very great pains and expending 
considerable time and money in getting those joints tight; and I say that they 
are a good deal tighter than I thought we could get them. I tried to cover it 
in such a way that it would not be a hardship. Whether that is fully obtained 
by my wording may be questioned. In other words, if I had said I wanted 
perfect contact, I knew perfectly well that there is no such thing as perfection; 
but, on the other hand, I did not want to be hampered when the time came 
with the claim that certain other things were good enough; and I hoped and 
expected that bidders would make allowance for that, and allow somewhat 
liberally for difficulties of good work. But I also tried to provide in the design 


142 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


that that result coulcl be obtained with as little trouble as possible; and, I 
think, on the whole, the method provided for obtaining this water-tightness 
worked out well, and perhaps did or did not lead to much unreasonable work. 
But that may be a matter of difference of opinion. 

On page 199, Mr. Goldmark was asked this question: 

Q. Do you think that your pride in obtaining a first-class job, in fact, a 
superior job, on the lock gates, would influence you, or did influence you, 
probably, in determining the character of work that you would demand under 
the specifications where they were general and left substantially to the judg¬ 
ment of the person enforcing them?—A. I do not think so; but I will say that 
I was not willing to take any chances as to whether a certain thing a little less 
good might, in my opinion, give good enough results—especially in the field. I 
think in the shop I do not recall anything I ordered that was anything more 
than required under quite ordinary and usual practice. 

As to the water-tightness in the field, it might have been possible to relax 
at times; but I honestly did not feel as if I ought to take the chances of 
getting something “ good enough.” I felt more certain of getting that result 
by being somewhat more particular. Though I did not think that I was going 
beyond what could be asked reasonably under the contract—although I will 
say I think we went about as far as we could go under the contract in what we 
asked. I would have protested against a more severe interpretation. 

The testimony of Mr. Howard H. McClintic, vice president of the McClintic- 
Marshall Construction Co., relative to the necessity of changing to iron tem¬ 
plets and reducing the size of the holes is found on pages 82 and 83 of General 
Exhibit 19, volume 19, and, for easy reference, is quoted below: 

A. As you know we started out to punch the work in accordance with the 
specifications, using our usual care in doing the work. When we started to put 
up the first leaves, it was found that all of the holes did not match perfectly. 
Ti inspectors insisted upon practically all the holes cleaning up. 

3 found, after going into the matter carefully, that this was practically 
impossible if the holes were punched in accordance with the specifications. 

In the meantime, the inspectors would neither accept nor reject the material, 
which held up the shopwork, and consequently delayed the erection of the work. 

After a thorough investigation and consultation, it was found that the only 
way the results required by the inspectors could be obtained was to discard the 
usual methods of doing the work, substitute steep and iron templets for wooden 
templets in a great many cases, and punch smaller holes in the work. We 
would call your attention to Mr. Hammer’s letter of February 23, 1911, ad¬ 
dressed to Mr. R. A. Pendergrass, in which he advises punching the holes 
smaller-- 

Q. Does he use the word “ advise ” there?—A. Yes, sir. “ I would advise 
punching smaller holes.” 

Q. I thought the word “ suggest ” was in there.—A. No, sir ; “ advise ” ;—and 
our instructions, issued to the drafting department, under date of February 23, 
1911 (p. 83), carrying out the recommendation of Mr. Hammer. To secure the 
degree of accuracy required by Mr. Hammer, there was no alternative but to 
change our method and use the smaller holes, in accordance with his advice and 
recommendations. Does that cover that? 

Q. It covers it your way—from your point of view.—A. Well, I think that 
is exactly how the thing occurred. 

Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Hammer in relation to this 
particular subject, and the advisability of punching smaller holes, before that 
letter was written?—A. Before the letter was written? 

Q. Yes.—A. I could not say that I had, personally. 

Q. Well, that is what I want to know, whether you had it personally or 
not?—A. In other words, I could not say that I personally took that matter up 
with Mr. Hammer. 

Q. Did you take it up with any of the Commission’s inspectors?—A. It is 
probable that Mr. Neeld took this matter up with Mr. Hammer direct. Mr. 
Neeld was manager of the shop at that time. 

Mr. H. II. Wagoner, the chief shop inspector of the McClintic- 
Marshall Construction Co., states, on page 99 of General Exhibit 19, 
volume 19, of the testimony, that the Commission’s inspectors were 



McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO 


143 


at times unreasonably close in their requirements as to the spacing 
of the holes. 

The pertinent part of the testimony of Mr. Wolf el in connection 
with the spacing of the holes and the reason for adopting steel tem¬ 
plets is found in quotation made from the testimony of Mr. Wolf el. 
(See pp. 98, 99, and 100 of this report). 

Mr. Price became chief inspector May 5, 1911. The determina¬ 
tion to use steel templets and the change in the diameter of the holes 
was made nearly three months before he took charge as chief in¬ 
spector. There was still in the yard, however, a considerable amount 
of material that had been fabricated, with the holes punched in ac¬ 
cordance with the requirements of the specifications. 

In his report. General Exhibit No. 3, volume No. 3, of the evidence, 
on page 9, in describing the character of the inspection, Mr. Price 
states: 

That the inspection was close in certain instances must be admitted, but it 
must be understood that the particular character of the work required it. Spe¬ 
cial attention was paid to the accuracy of the work on diaphragms A and to 
the spacing of the holes in the girders for diaphragm A connections and also 
length of girder and spacing of holes for sheathing. 

The reason why Mr. Price considered it necessary to insist upon 
accurate workmanship is stated on pages 10, 11, and 12 of his report 
referred to above. For ready reference these pages are quoted 
below: 

The reason why it was considered necessary to insist upon accurate w< > 
manship is shown by certain paragraphs in the specifications of Circular No.» . 
and it is also shown from the numbers of letters from Mr. Goldmark and Mr. 
Hammer relative to the subject of accuracy of certain members. 

In Mr. Hammer’s report to Mr. Goldmark, February 16, 1911, file 22-1, is 
this paragraph: 

“A high degree of accuracy in the shop work is required in order to get 
everything to match properly. Such accuracy is being demanded and the Con¬ 
tractors are working to reach this result.” 

Mr. Hammer’s letter to Mr. Wolfel, January 6, 1911, file 74: 

“ In work of this type with a great number of identical parts, I expect to see 
greater perfection than in work where little or no duplication is possible.” 

Letter of Mr. Hammer to Mr. Price, dated August 21, 1911, file 175, relative 
to accuracy of A frames: 

“ Replying to your letter of the lltli instant, in regard to inspection of A 
frames, asking to what extent the A frames should be permitted to be out of 
square * * * Mr. Goldmark indicates that there should be no difficulty in 

getting this work almost absolutely perfect. 

“ Personally, I believe that it should be possible to get the A frames less than 
one thirty-second inch out of square, and would advise that all A frames which 
do not come within this limit should he corrected.” 

Mr. Goldmark’s letter to Mr. Hammer, June 3, 1911, file 64, relative to A 
frames: 

“ You can see that it is of the utmost importance to get great accuracy in this 
matter. * * * I do not expect impossible accuracy in this or other matters, 

but the designs require a uniform bearing, both in the webs and on the dia¬ 
phragms, and it is a very slow process to grind out these variations in the 
field.” 

That the different members were used without reference to the leaf or con¬ 
tract number is shown in Mr. Goldmark’s letter to Mr. Hammer, dated June 6, 
1913, file 64: 

“All girders of a given mark were used freely and interchangeably in erec¬ 
tion, and the same was, of course, the case in regard to the frames, intercostals, 
and other parts.” 

This in itself demonstrates the necessity for accuracy. 

Paragraph 21, Circular 576, referring to horizontal girders: 


144 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


“ Especial care must be taken to have the ends of all girders milled to the 
exact dimensions and angles given on drawings.” 

Paragraph 23, circular 576, referring to vertical diaphragms: 

“ The vertical sides and top and the bottom surfaces are to be milled to the 
exact dimensions given on the drawings, making a very close fit with the ad¬ 
joining plates.” 

Paragraph 24, circular 576: 

“ Water-tight frames, * * * and on one side the flange or bounding 

angles will be crimped over the flange angles on the horizontal girders. The 
crimping must be smithed in such a manner as to obtain a close fit of both sides 
of the bounding angle to the adjoining structural parts and insure a good con¬ 
tact for calking. In no case will the use of steel shavings be permitted for fill¬ 
ing openings where the crimping is poorly done * * *. The top and the bot¬ 

tom flange angles of all vertical frames shall be milled.” 

Paragraph 34, circular 576: 

“All bolts connecting heel, pintle, and end reaction castings to the leaf shall 
be turned to a driving fit; the holes in the riveted structural parts must be 
reamed or drilled in the field to insure perfect fitting.” 

Paragraph 36, circular 576: 

“ The outside burrs must be removed from all reamed or drilled holes by 
slightly countersinking the holes. After the reaming is done the parts assem¬ 
bled are to be riveted up as far as possible without taking them apart.” 

Paragraph 38, circular 576: 

“All countersunk rivets shall be shipped smooth, unless otherwise noted on 
drawings. No recupping or setting up of rivets after driving will be permitted, 
nor the use of driftpins for enlarging the holes.” 

Paragraph 40, circular 576: 

“All sheared edges and ends of material shall be planed off to a depth of 
three-sixteenths inch, or as much more as may be necessary to remove the 
sheared surface of the material.” 

Paragraph 43, circular 576: 

“All workmanship must be first class in every particular, and all methods 
used during manufacture shall be satisfactory to the chief engineer or his 
authorized representative. Material undergoing fabrication will be inspected 
by the inspectors employed by the Commission. All material coming from the 
mill shall be perfectly straight before any work is done upon it at the Con¬ 
tractor’s works.” 

Paragraph 54, circular 576: 

“All material shall be of uniform quality through the mass of each object 
and free from all defects.” 

Paragraph 58, circular 576: 

“ Material may be rejected at any stage of manufacture, fabrication, and 
erection for surface or other injurious defects, either previously existing or 
developed in working.” 

Paragraph 104, circular 576: 

“ Before applying any paint or other covering, all rolled steel shall have rust 
and mill scale thoroughly removed by sand-blasting. * * * Any grease 

must be carefully cleaned off with gasoline or similar fluid.” 

Paragraph 121, circular 576: 

“ The vertical ends of the leaves must be kept straight from the top to the 
bottom, so that the bearing plates on the quoin and miter posts may be truly 
in line and make proper contact.” 

In Mr. Hammer’s letter to Mr. Price, dated July 16, 1912, file 70-4, is the 
following paragraph: 

“ Confirming verbal instructions given you previously, you are advised to 
reject all material badly corroded or pitted, as only first-class material free 
from rust or pit marks must be used for our work.” 

in a letter of Mr. Goldmark of June 23, 1911, part of which is 
quoted in Mr. Price’s report above given, it is stated, quoting the last 
two paragraphs: 

You can see that it is of the utmost importance to get great accuracy in this 
matter (referring to the ends of diaphragm A), as well as in the reaming out 
of the rivet holes for the connections which you are doing in the shop. I do 
not expect impossible accuracy in this or other matters, but the designs require 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 145 

a uniform bearing, both on the webs and on the diaphragms, and it is a very 
slow process to grind out these variations in the field. 

If you do not feel entirely satisfied with the placing of the rivet holes, you 
had better omit the shop reaming and have these holes reamed out in the field, 
though I should regret making this move. 

That Mr. Price considered that the Contractor could not do the 
work with such accuracy as was being demanded of him under in¬ 
structions from Mr. Hammer and Mr. Goldmark without reducing 
the size of the subpunched holes to eleven-sixteenths inch is demon¬ 
strated from the fact that after permission was given to punch all 
holes eleven-sixteenths inch in diameter he recommended that Mr. 
Hammer request the contractor to return to the punching of small 
holes. . This request was made in a letter of April 12, 1912, found in 
Exhibit 74 of the testimony of Mr. Wolfel, volume reference No. 7, 
which is as follows; 

I advise returning to the former method of punching—eleven-sixteenths inch 
for all holes for field connections, except holes in girders, which are punched 
smaller and are reamed to jig in shop. To facilitate fitting up in the field I 
would suggest following the method lined out by Mr. Pittman in the third 
paragraph of his letter of instructions to the shop relating to “ change in size 
of holes,” dated April 4, 1912. 

In a report of Mr. Hammer to Mr. Goldmark of April 5, 1912, 
quoted on page 18 of Mr. Price’s report, Mr. Hammer states: 

Two girders have been fitted up and reamed on this order [referring to con¬ 
tract 4SG1J. The result was unsatisfactory on account of a great number of 
holes not “ cleaning up ” when reamed. I have therefore requested the con¬ 
tractors to punch smaller holes on the balance of the work. 

In a report to Mr. Hammer of April 9, 1912, Mr. Price stated, 
in relation to the shop rivets in girder G-3, serial 2, the second girder 
of contract 4861, that: 

Mr. Gaugse reports 225 unfair holes after final reaming, and the conditions 
in this respect worse than any girder for contract 4845. 

It is further stated in this report to Mr. Hammer: 

Your instructions were followed relating to reaming to larger size holes for 
shop rivets in the upstream chord angles, selecting holes which were most out 
of true. 

In a report to Mr. Hammer, dated April 8, 1912, Mr. Price stated: 

It is to be regretted that the size of the subpunched holes was changed from 
eleven-sixteenths inch to thirteen-sixteenths inch, especially so as to holes in 
the girders and sheathing. The first two girders, G 3 R & L, serial 1 and 2, 
contract 4861, proved this method to be unsatisfactory, the holes being too 
large to permit of proper adjustment of the chord angles, and thus throwing 
many holes of the web plates out of true, as reported on April 5. As a number 
of chord angles and web plates have been subpunched either thirteen-sixteenths 
or three-fourths inch we may expect more or less trouble in this respect until all 
of this material is fabricated. 

Within a few days after Mr. Price became chief inspector he 
examined girder G 5 K, serial 48, on contract 4845, which had been 
rejected by Mr. Goldmark when he was examining the condition of 
the work with Mr. Hammer in April, 1911. On May 12, 1911, Mr. 
Price reported to Mr. Hammer as follows: 

After carefully examining girder G 5 R, serial No. 48, shop order 4845, for¬ 
merly rejected by Mr. Goldmark, I recommend that the whole girder be 
rejected. The only parts that it might be possible to be made use of are the 
center web, stiffeners, and small minor detail parts. 


29249°— H. Doc. 906, 64-1-10 



146 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO 


The manner in which this girder had been fabricated, and the 
fact that it was personally passed upon by Mr. Goldmark and Mr. 
Hammer and rejected, probably indicated to Mr. Price, at least in 
a general way, the character of the work which would be unsatis¬ 
factory. 

The number of unfair holes of girder G 5 R, serial No. 48, was 
130, or 6.1 per cent. 

In accepting the material under contract 4845 Mr. Goldmark did 
so with the reservation that it would be at the contractor’s risk as to 
whether or not the work would go together properly in the field. 

The facts show that the work when erected was entirely satis¬ 
factory. 

In a letter from Mr. Goldmark to Mr. Hammer, dated July 2, 
1912, he stated: 

I am glad to see that two of the leaves have now been tested for water¬ 
tightness and were almost absolutely perfect. Mr. Guynn stated he had never 
seen more perfect preliminary tests than these. 

In his testimony given in Washington, page 38, quoted in this 
report (p. 119), Mr. Goldmark stated: 

I always thought that the punching of those small holes was unnecessary— 
at least I always thought that the punching of the small holes for the 1-inch 
rivets was unnecessary, and I still think so. 

He further stated: 

The punching of the eleven-sixteenths-inch holes for the seven-eighths-inch 
rivets was only a decrease in size of one-sixteenth inch. And I always thought 
that it was unnecessary until the change was made back to the larger holes. 
Then it was reported to me that they simply could not get good rivets with 
the larger holes in the shop even. And while I have never been able to under¬ 
stand it, I gradually came to the conclusion that there was something peculiar 
about this work which required the small holes. 

But the fitting of the rivet holes after the first eight gates was so beautiful— 
was so nearly perfect—that I wondered why on earth they punched them with 
the small holes. When Mr. Jewell asked me to change them I said, “ By all 
means,” and then, as you know, they changed them, and they reported from 
Pittsburgh that it would not do, and they changed them back without telling 
me very much about it. 

In his report to Mr. Goldmark of February 16, 1911, Mr. Hamrrier 
stated: 

The erected parts of the 54-foot 8-inch high leaf did not match as well as 
should be expected; especially is it noted that the rivet holes in the girders 
run somewhat irregular. The contractors have been requested to make steel 
templets, which are now being used in checking up all girders in order to ascer¬ 
tain which girders can be considered as interchangeable members. 

A high degree of accuracy in the shopwork is required in order to get every¬ 
thing to match properly. Such accuracy is being demanded, and the contractors 
are working to reach this result. 

Mr. Hammer insisted at first that he must inspect and pass on all 
of the girders (see pp. 14 and 15 of Mr. Crane’s testimony). 

On page 30 of Mr. Crane’s testimony in relation to inspection he 
states: 

A. First, Mr. Marshall, several times when we had rejected material, stated 
before Mr. Hammer and myself that Mr. Goldmark had made the statement 
that he required nothing but common, ordinary, commercial work at the Fort 
Pitt Hotel on the evening of Wednesday, about the 12th (meaning the 12th of 
April). 





McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


147 


On page 31 of Mr. Crane’s testimony he states: 

I repeated this to Mr. Goldmark on that evening, and I stated I did not say 
any such thing; but I did say that the material should be of common, ordinary, 
commercial material, but that the fabrication must be of the best class of 
material, equal to and better than required by the Navy Department, and on 
that statement I was doing or had been doing much of the work. 

The reporter evidently got his pronouns mixed in some of the 
above statement, using “ I ” where he should have used “ he,” as 
referring to a statement made by Mr. Goldmark. 

On page 39 of his testimony Mr. Crane states, in relation to the 
class of work that was performed by the contractor, that— 

There might have been a misunderstanding—evidently was a misunderstand¬ 
ing—between Mr. Marshall and Mr. Goldmark as to the quality of the work. 

These statements show very clearly that there was a decided differ¬ 
ence of opinion between Mr. Hammer and the representatives of the 
contractor as to the quality of work that should be produced under 
the contract. 

We have not been able to have the testimony of Mr. Hammer, but 
there are letters in the files which express pretty clearly Mr. Ham¬ 
mer’s views of the accuracy he had a right to demand in the fabrica¬ 
tions of this work. In a letter to Mr. Wolf el dated January 6, 1911, 
he states: 

7. C. C. 576■—Manufacture of horizontal girders .—As you will recall, I have 
formerly verbally called your attention to some imperfections in the manufac¬ 
ture of the horizontal girders. On the first girder assembled the bent chord 
angles did not draw up properly to the web plate, and the same trouble has been 
found on the ninth, sixteenth, and eighteenth girders now assembled. It is 
also found that a number of horizontal stiffeners have not a close seating to the 
chord angles, this imperfection being caused by the crimping being deeper than 
necessary and possibly also from drillings which have been left between the 
seating surfaces. The amount of unfair holes—that is, holes that won’t ream 
out properly—has not been decreased in the girders which have been reamed 
recently. 

As stated above, your attention was called to these errors before, and it was 
promised that they would be corrected and improvements made, as far as 
possible, in later work. I am sorry to see that the same mistakes are still being 
made. In work of this type, with a great number of identical parts, I expect to 
see greater perfection than in work where little or no duplication is possible. 

One of the remarkable things in connection with the testimony and 
the records with relation to the change in size of the subpunched 
holes is the fact that the subject was not taken up with Mr. Goldmark 
at the time he was at the contractor’s shops inspecting the material 
in the yard with Mr. Hammer in April, 1911. 

Mr. Goldmark does state, however, that he thinks either Mr. 
Marshall or Mr. McClintic told him that they were going to change 
the size of the holes, or had started to do it, but that he would not 
swear to that (see p. 40 of his testimony). 

After the first eight leaves practically all holes were subpunched 
or drilled eleven-sixteenths inch. This material was bolted up with 
five-eighths inch bolts, and the evidence shows that the punching was 
so good that the contractor had no difficulty in passing the five- 
eighths inch bolts through the material. The punching after the 
first eight leaves was done very accurately. There does not seem to 
be any reason why the size of the holes should have been reduced 
after the contractor began the use of steel templets. 


148 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


On contract 4845 for the 54-foot 8-inch leaves, the total amount of 
material under item 1 was 6,467,104 pounds. The Isthmian Canal 
Commission has a record of rejections for shop errors under this con¬ 
tract of 112,522 pounds of material. The rejections amounted to 
0.0173 per cent of the total amount of material of this contract. The 
entire amount of material, including spare parts, fabricated for the 
lock gates, item 1, was 106,963,039 pounds. If the percentage of 
rejection of material under contract 4845 had been maintained 
throughout the fabrication of the work there would have been re¬ 
jected for shop errors 1,850,460 pounds of material. The same char¬ 
acter of records from which the 112,522 pounds of material is shown 
to have been rejected on contract 4845 show that all of the rejections 
made on the contract amount to 396,333 pounds. Neither of these 
amounts include material rejected at the pickling plant and material 
rejected for surface defects, but only cover rejections in shop and 
yard of finished and partly finished parts of members, as the Com¬ 
mission’s inspectors kept a record of. (See Exhibit No. 8 of Mr. 
Price’s testimony, taken at Rankin, Pa., June 30, 1915, General Ex¬ 
hibit No. 18, vol. No. 18.) More than 50 per cent of the rejections on 
contract 4845, covering the material for the 54-foot 8-inch leaves, was 
for errors in punching and the spacing of the holes. 

The testimony above quoted and referred to shows conclusively 
that the contractor experienced great difficulty in the manufacture of 
the material for the first contract, 4845, so as to meet the requirements 
as to accuracy in the spacing of the holes and in other particulars that 
were demanded of him by the Commission’s engineers and inspectors. 

Below is given a brief summary of the essential facts as to the spac¬ 
ing of the holes, and the conclusions of the committee as to the re¬ 
sponsibility for the increased expenses and damages resulting to the 
contractor on account of the change in the size of the subpunched 
holes from that provided for in the specifications. 

SUMMARY. 

Mr. Conley, Mr. Wolf el, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Neeld, and Mr. Mc- 
Clintic think the requirements as to the accuracy in the spacing of 
the holes was in excess of what was necessary to secure first-class 
work within the meaning of that term as applied to the lock-gate 
material under the usual practice. 

Mr. Goldmark, Mr. Hammer, Mr. Guynn, Mr. Crane, and Mr. 
Price do not think their requirements in the accuracy of the spacing 
of the holes was any greater than should have been demanded under 
the terms of the contract, nor any greater than was justified under 
a fair and reasonable interpretation of the contract. 

Mr. John N. Ostrom thinks the demands made upon the Contractor 
were unreasonable and impractical of accomplishment under the 
specifications and were outside of the usual practice and more accu¬ 
rate than the Contractor might reasonably have expected to have 
enforced against him under the specifications as drawn. 

The work on the first contract, 4845, being the 54-foot 8-inch 
leaves, was so unsatisfactory to Mr. Hammer that upon his advice 
the size of the subpunched and drilled holes was reduced to eleven- 
sixteenths inch throughout. The Contractor believed it was neces¬ 
sary to make this change from the specifications in order to get the 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


149 


work accepted in the shop under the conditions that prevailed with 
Mr. Hammer in charge of the inspection. 

It is reasonably certain from the weight of the evidence that either 
too great accuracy was demanded in the spacing of the holes or that 
the material was such that the necessary accuracy could not be ob¬ 
tained without smaller holes. Advising and practically requiring 
the Contractor to fabricate the material with the smaller holes, except 
the first eight leaves was a requirement that was not authorized 
under the contract. 

The evidence establishes the fact that the difficulty and increased 
expense that would result from the use of small holes was not fully 
appreciated by the Contractor nor by Mr. Hammer or Mr. Price, and 
probably not by Mr. Goldmark. If they had been, it seems incon¬ 
ceivable that the Contractor’s representatives would not have taken 
the matter up with Mr. Goldmark in a vigorous manner when he was 
there in April, 1911, if not before, and if Mr. Goldmark had fully 
appreciated the resultant difficulty from bolting up with small bolts 
in the afield he would certainly have directed a return to the speci¬ 
fications as to the size of the holes. 

The damage to the Contractor was, however, just as great as it 
would have been if all the consequences had been foreseen. 

The work on the first eight leaves proved to be better where 
erected in the field than Mr. Goldmark, Mr. Hammer, or the rep¬ 
resentatives of the Contractor thought it would be, but it was not 
so good as subsequent work done under the contract. It was un¬ 
doubtedly better than it would have been without the corrections 
that were required to be made by the Commission’s inspectors. 

The ultimate facts seem to be as follows: 

(1) The Contractor did not fabricate the work on the first con¬ 
tract, 4845, for the 54-foot 8-inch leaves as well as it should have 
been done for first-class work under the specifications, reasonably 
construed, although it may have been equal to bridge work fabri¬ 
cated under its usual practice. 

(2) The Commission’s inspectors were demanding work of a 
finer grade and of greater accuracy than they had a right to demand 
under the specifications, reasonably construed. More latitude should 
have been allowed in passing material with unfair holes and more 
latitude should have been allowed in the correction of material con¬ 
taining unfair holes, if it was intended that the work should be done 
under the original specifications. 

(3) The responsibility for the first congestion in the shop was in 
part due to the Contractor and in part due to the unreasonable and 
unwarranted requirements made by the Commission’s engineers and 

inspectors^ United g tates has profited by the unreasonable demands 
of the inspectors to the extent that it got better work than it had a 
right to demand under the specifications, unchanged, and the Con¬ 
tractor has been damaged by the action of the inspectors to the extent 
that he incurred expenses and suffered loss under the changed specifi¬ 
cations in an endeavor to comply with the unreasonable and unwar¬ 
ranted requirements made upon him in an effort to secure such accu¬ 
racy in the spacing of the holes that they would all, or practically all, 
clean up. 


150 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


(5) This degree of accuracy was practically impossible to obtain 
and was not a reasonable requirement under specifications that did 
not call for it in terms nor specify what per cent should clean up or 
how they should be remedied. 

(6) Subsequent to the fabrication of the material on the first con¬ 
tract, 4845, for the 54-foot 8-inch leaves, the work was first-class, even 
under the rigid requirements of the Commission’s engineers and 
inspectors. 

The conclusion of your committee is that if the degree of accuracy 
in the spacing of the holes required by the engineers and inspectors 
of the Isthmian Canal Commission and the demand by them that 
practically all holes should clean up was necessary, it was so imprac¬ 
ticable as to be nearly impossible from a practical standpoint to 
obtain it without a change in the specifications. If the accuracy in 
the spacing of the holes and the demand that the holes should prac¬ 
tically all clean up was unnecessary, then the requirements for such 
accuracy and the demands with relation to the cleaning up of the 
holes should not have been made. 

Under the first assumption the United States forced the Con¬ 
tractor to do the work under different specifications from those upon 
which his bid was based, and in justice, equity, and fairness should 
bear the increased expense and loss of the Contractor caused by this 
change, except in so far as the Contractor may have contributed to 
the loss by his failure to observe the provision in the contract re¬ 
quiring him to present his claim at the time. 

Under the second assumption the increased expenditures and loss 
were due to the unnecessary requirements of the Commission’s engi¬ 
neers and inspectors. Your committee is of the opinion that the 
reduction in the size of the holes from those called for in the specifi¬ 
cations was principally due to one or the other, or both, of the above 
causes. 

The loss and damage to the Contractor due to this change, so far 
as it can be traced, should therefore in equity, fairness, and justice 
be borne by the United States, except in so far as he may have con¬ 
tributed to the loss by his failure to present his claim in the manner 
provided for under the terms of the contract. (See pp. 308 to 314, 
inclusive, of this report.) 

Steel templets .—The use of steel templets in the fabrication of ma¬ 
terial of the class of the lock gates is unusual except where they are 
specifically provided for. The contractor was justified in assuming 
that the usual methods of fabrication would meet the requirements, 
except in so far as the inherent character of the work indicated or the 
specifications prescribed that other methods should be adopted. The 
contractor had a right, therefore, to act on the assumption that steel 
templets would not be required. But even with their use, the ma¬ 
terial could not be fabricated to the satisfaction of Mr. Hammer and 
Mr. Price without a reduction in the size of the holes. That this is 
true is demonstrated by what took place in the shop after permission 
was granted by Mr. Goldmark, in his cablegram of January 12, 1912, 
to punch all holes thirteen-sixteenths inch in the shop. (See report 
of Mr. Price, General Exhibit No. 3, vol. No. 3, pp. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 
20, and 21; see also testimony of Mr. Wolfel, pp. 221 to 232, inclusive. 
General Exhibit No. 7, vol. No. 7.) 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


151 


The loss and expense of the contractor suffered by reason of being 
compelled to use steel templets instead of wooden templets should in 
equity, fairness, and justice be borne by the United States. 

The greater part of the difficulty in the fabrication of this ma¬ 
terial from December, 1910, to March, 1911, was caused by the de¬ 
mands made by Mr. Hammer for great accuracy in the spacing of the 
holes, and the demand that practically all the holes, when reamed out, 
should clean up, although a part of it was undoubtedly due to un¬ 
satisfactory workmanship in the beginning. (See testimony of 
Mr. Guynn, General Exhibit No. 6, vol. No. 6; Exhibit No. 1 in 
that testimony being a letter from Mr. Guynn to Mr. Hammer, dated 
March 1, 1911, giving details as to the condition of the work that had 
been assembled in the yard. See also letter of Mr. Guynn to Mr. 
Hammer, dated February 15, 1911, introduced in connection with the 
testimony of Mr. C. M. Neeld, General Exhibit No. 23, vol. 23. In 
this letter Mr. Guynn characterized the work as follows: “ The work 
in general is unsatisfactory.” Also see pp. 76, 77, and 79 of this 
report. See testimony of Mr. Crane, General Exhibit No. 5, vol. 
No. 5, pp. 10 and 11. In this testimony Mr. Crane states that the 
holes had not been accurately punched or the templets accurately 
made. This testimony is quoted on pp. 82, 83, and 84 of this report.) 

On pages 30 and 38 of Mr. Crane’s testimony he explains the char¬ 
acter of the inspection, and states on page 38 that— 

It did not compare with first-class bridge work, was not as good a work as 
we had received from the same shops on the New York tunnel work, or that we 
received later from the same shops on the Hell Gate Bridge. You must bear 
in mind that the lock question is simply a problem by itself, different from 
bridge construction, and yet with the conditions of the work at that time I felt 
that it was not up to first-class work, as required by the specifications, and I 
had been instructed on by Mr. Goldmark. 

Mr. Wolfel points out on pages 121, 122, 123, and 124 of the testi¬ 
mony of Mr. Crane that it was the character of the work that caused 
the difficulty at the start. (See pp. 106-7-8-9 of this report.) 

Mr. Hammer thought the work was so bad that he requested the 
contractor to make steel templets in order to check up the work to de¬ 
termine whether the girders were interchangeable or not. 

In relation to some of the girders, Mr. Goldmark stated in his 
testimony, pages 32 and 33, that— 

They certainly were not as good as they should have been. (See p. 114 of 
this report.) 

Mr. Goldmark also stated in connection with the action of Mr. 
Hammer, that—* 

Mr. Hammer was much worried, but I think I would have felt about the same 
as lie did about these particular girders. I can not say but what I had approval 
of what he had done in that matter at that time. I do not see that he could 
have done any other way. (See p. 115 of this report.) 

That the contractor had notified Mr. Jewel that some of the ma¬ 
terial had not been very well punched is apparent from a letter from 
Mr. Jewel found in the testimony of Mr. Wolfel, Exhibit 68-A. 
In this letter Mr. Jewel stated: 

Not having heard anything from you for two weeks, I am at a loss to under¬ 
stand what disposition, if any, has been made of the badly punched material. 

When Mr. Goldmark was there in April he rejected one girder, 
serial No. 48 G 5 E, with the exception of some few pieces. The 


152 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


subject of bad holes and bad punching and bad spacing of holes was 
then acute, yet the testimony does not show that the subject of reduc¬ 
tion in the size of the holes was specifically taken up with Mr. Gold- 
mark at that time. If the punching of the holes had been as good as 
the Contractors now insist that it was on these first eight leaves, it 
would have been the natural thing for them to have taken up this 
subject with Mr. Goldmark and vigorously presented their conten¬ 
tion. This indicates clearly that the Contractor must have thought 
at that time that there was considerable inaccuracy in the punching 
of the holes, at least sufficient to justify the statement made in this 
report that a part of the difficulty in the fabrication of the material 
from December, 1910, to March, 1911, was due to unsatisfactory 
workmanship in the beginning. It is insisted, however, by the Con¬ 
tractor that as the work went together satisfactorily in the field and 
produced good results that the work in the shop must have been 
first class in the beginning. 

As heretofore shown, something like 50,000 to 60,000 pounds of 
chord angles were cut off, and all told there was 112,522 pounds of 
material rejected on contract 4845, and it is entirely problematical 
as to how the erection of the leaves for the 54-foot 8-inch gates would 
have been effected if all of this work had been accepted as originally 
tendered for acceptance by the Contractor. 

It is the opinion of your committee, therefore, that some of the 
difficulty experienced by the Contractor in the early part of the fabri¬ 
cation of this material was due to unsatisfactory workmanship. The 
meaning of “ unsatisfactory workmanship ” as used here, is that the 
work was not such as should have satisfied a reasonable and compe¬ 
tent inspector under a reasonable and fair interpretation of the 
specifications. 

The extent to which the output of shop 2 was affected and the 
expense of fabrication of the lock-gate material was increased by 
unsatisfactory workmanship in the beginning, will be determined in 
the final conclusions reached by your committee as to the amount to 
be allowed under claim 2. 

The principal details of construction, exclusive of the spacing of 
the rivet holes, where the Contractor claims the requirements of the 
engineers and inspectors were greater than called for by the contract 
are: Calipering, wedges or fillers, grinding rivet heads, chipping and 
finishing, vertical diaphragms and vertical frames, foot-walk frames, 
rusting and pitting, turned bolts. (See Claimant’s Brief of Testi¬ 
mony, p. 42.) 

The testimony shows in as much detail as it was practicable to 
obtain, just what took place in the shop in connection with each of 
the operations specified above. Your committee also examined such 
records of the Isthmian Canal Commission as contained information 
showing what was done by the Isthmian Canal Commission’s in¬ 
spectors, and what they required the Contractor to do in connection 
with each of the operations specified above. 

The circular invitation upon which the bid was based contained 
a form of contract, and in article 3 of this contract the character of 
the inspection to which the material would be subjected in the shop 
is set forth in detail. This article of the contract is as follows: 

Article 3. It is further understood, covenanted, and agreed that all ma¬ 
terials and workmanship used and applied under this contract, in details and 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


153 


finish, shall be first class'and of the very best quality, and that all materials, 
both in the form ot raw materials, and at every stage of manufacture, and all 
workmanship, shall from the beginning to the end of the work be subject to the 
inspection of the chief engineer of the Commission, or his authorized representa¬ 
tive, and that the Commission’s inspectors shall have free access at all times to 
any works where any raw materials or manufactured parts used or to be used 
in the construction of any gates, fixed parts, or any materials for spare parts 
covered by this contract, are located, for the purpose of examining such raw 
materials or manufactured parts, and for the purpose of witnessing any and all 
processes of manufacture, and they shall have free access at all times to any 
and all parts of the erecting plant and all other parts of the work on the Isth¬ 
mus; and the Contractor shall furnish such inspectors free at all works where 
any material is being manufactured or fabricated under this contract, suitable 
office room, 'and such plain office furniture and drafting boards as they may 
require for the proper transaction of their business for the Commission. The 
Contractor shall also furnish, at his own expense, all materials, test pieces, and 
full-sized members, properly machined, required for making tests and the use 
<rf approved testing machines, satisfactory to the chief engineer of the Commis¬ 
sion, or his authorized representative, and convenient to the work where the 
inspection is being made, and all labor and appliances necessary for handling 
material while undergoing surface inspection, and for making tensile, bending, 
and other tests. 

It is further understood, covenanted, and agreed that the Commission’s in¬ 
spectors may at any time reject any or all work or material not in accordance 
with this contract, and the right to reject any and all defective work or mate¬ 
rial shall continue until final inspection and acceptance and payment for mate¬ 
rial and work herein provided for, regardless of any prior inspection, payment, 
or act of the Commission, and such defective or unsatisfactory material or 
work shall be promptly removed, remedied, or replaced by the Contractor, with¬ 
out expense to the Commission. Should the Contractor fail to promptly remove, 
remedy, or replace any defective or unsatisfactory work or material, after 
being notified so to do, the Commission shall have the right to furnish all 
labor and material necessary to remedy the defects and to charge the cost 
thereof to the Contractor. 

This article of the contract clearly indicated that the material 
would be subject to close inspection by the Isthmian Canal Com¬ 
mission's inspectors. The fact that the material was fabricated in 
the United States, to be shipped nearly 3,000 miles and erected, was 
another reason why the material should have been subjected to close 
inspection in the shop. This fact, however, would not be a reason for 
establishing unnecessarily close limitations or requiring unnecessary 
accuracy as to the character and finish of the work. 

Considerable evidence, in fact a great deal of evidence, has been 
produced in this claim tending to establish unreasonable demands 
made by the Commission’s inspectors in most of the details of con¬ 
struction above specified, but it has not been possible for your com¬ 
mittee to determine in each instance just to what extent the demanjds 
were unreasonable, nor has it been found possible to fix a specific 
valuation as to the excess cost that was occasioned by unreasonable 
demands or unusually close requirements as to each of these opera¬ 
tions. The facts do show, however, that in each of the particulars 
mentioned, except as to turned bolts, the requirements of the contract 
were at times exceeded, and that these excesses must have affected the 
cost of fabricating the material. 

The contention as to each of the above items (top of p. 144) will 
be considered briefly: 

Calipering .—The material was calipered in the first part of the 
contract, in the receiving yard, to determine the thickness. This 
seems to have been discontinued. The plates were calipered at the 


154 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


pickling plant for identification. (See testimony of Mr. Pittman, 
p. 11.) They were next calipered at the laying-off and punching 
department, to see that the thickness of the plate corresponded with 
the mark. (See p. 12 of Mr. Pittman’s testimony.) The next caliper¬ 
ing was done at the planer, at the lower end of the shop, to determine 
approximately the weight of the plates. (See pp. 12, 13, and 14 of 
the testimony of Mr. Pittman.) 

The calipering of the plates at so many places was an unusual 
shop requirement. (See testimony of Mr. Pittman, vol. 12, pp. 11 
to 31; testimony of Mr. Reed, vol. 10, pp. 112 and 134 to 136 and 138 
to 143; testimony of Mr. Crane, vol. 5, pp. 51 to 59; testimony of Mr. 
Price, vol. 10, p. 34; testimony of Mr. Wagoner, vol. 19, p. 121; and 
Mr. Hurlston, vol. 14, pp. 41, 42, 67, and 68.) 

The Contractor claims that all of this calipering should have been 
done at the mill under paragraphs 76 and 77 of the contract. The 
material was calipered at the mill. (See testimony of Mr. Crane, 
vol. 5, p. 55.) 

The contract gave the Isthmian Canal Commission permission to 
perform this operation as a part of the inspection of the material, if 
it was deemed to be necessary by the inspectors, but gave it only in 
the general authority to inspect the material at every point, and it is 
probable that there may have been too much handling required to 
enable the Isthmian Canal Commission’s inspectors to perform this 
operation. 

Mr. Pittman states, on page 27 of his testimony, that he thinks 
three men would have spent about one-third of their time, which 
would have been equivalent to one man working all the time. This 
would have included all the calipering that was done at the lower 
end of the yard after the plates had been planed. This estimate is 
probably too high. Mr. Reed says they do not do calipering on other 
work at all. (See Mr. Pittman’s testimony, p. 30.) Mr. Price was 
asked to state briefly what was required by the inspectors at the time 
they were inspecting the plates, after they had been punched and 
planed. 

Mr. Price’s statement is found on page 23 of Mr. Pittman’s testi¬ 
mony, and is as follows: 

The plates, after they were taken from the planers, were put on skids at the 
door of the shop, just inside the shop door. They generally came out in lots 
of four, and we checked up the top plates and measured up the holes, and then 
lined up the holes by looking through them; if they lined up all right, that 
completed the inspection of those four plates. If the inspection mark was on 
the top plate of the four plates, we raised that up for calipering, and as I 
remember, we calipered in the center of each end; we raised one end up, and 
then went to the other end and had that raised up. Then we raised the next 
plate. If the erection marks were not on top of the plate, that plate had to be 
turned over or raised up high enough so that the inspectors could see the 
erection mark—the original erection mark. Each plate was calipered at each 
end at that point. 

Further statements of Mr. Price in connection with the operation 
of the calipering are found on pages 24 and 25 of Mr. Pittman’s 
testimony. On page 26, Mr. Price states: 

I caliper every piece of every member when I am doing my own inspection, 
but not with a micrometer. I always caliper every section. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 155 

In connection with the way the operation affected the shop, Mr. 
Pittman states on page 26: 

Well, the plates took up space at the lower end of the shop prior to the time 
that they were calipered and during the time that they were being calipered, 
and required to handle the plates the services of men that should have been 
employed otherwise in getting more output. 

There is probably some justification for the complaint of the Con¬ 
tractor relative to the amount of calipering that was done on the 
material, but it can not be admitted by your committee that the con¬ 
tractor, under the terms of the contract, had a right in every in¬ 
stance to determine what should be done by the Isthmian Canal Com¬ 
mission’s inspectors. This is a question that, from the very nature 
of it, must first have been decided by the Isthmian Canal Commis¬ 
sion’s inspectors. It is believed, however, by your committee that 
they carried this operation further than was justified. 

Wedges or -fillers .—The Contractor claims that, these were unim¬ 
portant members, and that he was required to do very fine machine 
work under the requirements of the inspectors. (See p. 43 of brief 
of Contractor.) 

The principal part of the testimony in connection with the wedges 
or fillers is found at the following places: Mr. Reed, volume 10, 
pages 118, 121, 147 to 150; Mr. Price, volume 10, page 81; Mr. Pitt¬ 
man, volume 12, pages 31 to 37; Mr. Conley, volume 22, pages 17 
and 18. 

The Commission’s inspectors insisted upon a limitation in the 
variation in the thickness shown on the drawing of not more than 
one-thirty-second inch. (See testimony of Mr. Pittman, p. 37.) 

Some of the wedges were rejected because they were planed too 
thin; others were sent back for correction because they were planed 
too thick. The shop inspectors were not aware of the fact that the 
wedges were to be planed in the field. (For above statement, see 
testimony of Mr. Price, vol. 10, p. 81.) 

In the list of rejections attached to the testimony of Mr. Price, 
Exhibit 4, there is a record of 6 fillers, C-158. D-158; rejected—one- 
fourth inch scant of required width. This rejection was made Jan¬ 
uary 9, 1912. In the same list, contract 5749, replace material, there 
is a record of rejection of wedge DW 35 L, owing to not coming 
up to our requirements in weight or gauge. On May 3, 1912, there 
is a record as follows: 

Rejection of 6 wedges 1-DW21 R , 4-UW41 R , 1-UW41 L ; gauge eleven-sixteenth 
inch instead of three-fourths inch as required. Wedges will not true up. 

On August 16, 1912, there is a record of two wedges being rejected 
on account of being one-eighth inch short. (Contract 4863.) 

These rejections would seem to indicate pretty clearly that under 
instructions of Mr. Hammer, the wedges were being made very 
accurately. The degree of this accuracy is shown fully on page 44 of 
the claimant’s brief. 

In view of the fact that most of these wedges were required to be 
replaned in the field, of which requirement the shop inspectors do not 
appear to have been aware (see testimony of Mr. Price, p. 81), the 
great accuracy demanded at the shop in making these wedges was 
unnecessary. 


156 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


Grinding rivet heads .—Paragraph 38 of the specifications provides 
that : 

All countersunk rivets shall be chipped smooth unless otherwise noted on 
drawings. 

There were 1,113,814 countersunk rivet heads in the shop. (For a 
list of such rivets, see Exhibit No. 5 of Mr. Pittman’s testimony, 
vol. 12.). . 

Under this specification the Commission’s inspectors required the 
Contractor to chip rivets so that the head would be a little full and 
then grind them down where necessary. The usual practice is to 
chip the countersunk rivets so they will be slightly dished at the 
center of the rivet. This is the way the contractor construed the 
provision of paragraph 38 of the specifications, which required all 
countersunk rivets to be chipped smooth. Mr. Price, under direction 
of Mr. Hammer, construed the specifications requiring the head of 
countersunk rivet to be so chipped that it w T ould entirely fill the 
countersink and be smooth with the surface. (See pp. 41 and 42 
of the testimony of Mr. Pittman.) This grinding was done with 
emery wheels. (See testimony of Mr. Pittman, p. 42; for a full state¬ 
ment from Messrs. Price, Pittman, Sterrett, Wolf el, Reed, as to the 
grinding of these countersunk rivets, see pp. 37 to 51 of Mr. Pittman’s 
testimony.) 

Mr. Pittman estimates that four men were grinding most of the 
time. (See p. 50 of his testimony.) This estimate is undoubtedly 
too high, for the reason that the total expense for grinding on the 
lock-gate material was only $872.47, which would be, on the tonnage 
of the lock-gate material, 1.62 cents per ton. There does not appear 
to be an}^ charge for grinding the material from December, 1909, to 
November, 1910; and under the head of grinding from February, 
1913, to February, 1914, there was a charge of $20.13. 

It is probable that a part of the high charge for chipping on the 
lock-gate material was due to the refinement in the requirements as 
to chipping the countersunk rivets. This will be considered under 
the heading of “ Chipping and finishing.” 

There was some unnecessary grinding in connection with these 
countersunk rivets—there seems to be no doubt of that—but not to 
the extent as shown in the testimony of Mr. Pittman. This grind¬ 
ing probably also delayed the Contractor in other operations in con¬ 
nection with the production of the material for the lock gates. 

Mr. Pittman was asked the following question: 

Q. Would that delay the member in passing through the shop to any consider¬ 
able extent?—A. Yes; it would. In the case of girders it would be necessary 
sometimes to hold the girder on the skids for grinding when it was otherwise 
ready to be run out on the scales. 

Mr. Price. That is right. (See pp. 48 and 49 of Mr. Pittman’s testimony.) 

Chipping and finishing .—Paragraph 40 of the specifications pro¬ 
vides : 

All sheared edges and ends of material shall be planed off to a depth of three- 
sixteenths of an inch, or as much more as may be necessary to remove the 
sheared surface of the material. Where planing is not possible they must be 
neatly dressed by chipping. 

Paragraph 41 of the specifications provides: 

The edges of all plates and shapes which require to be calked for water-tight¬ 
ness must be either planed by machine or, where this is not feasible, chipped 
by hand in a fair line true to the dimensions to a bevel of about 15 degrees. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 157 

In the specifications of the New York Connecting Railway Co., 
paragraph 51, it is provided: 

All shearing of shapes and bars shall be neatly and accurately done and all 
portions of the work exposed to view shall be neatly finished. 

Paragraph 52 of this specification reads: 

All sheared edges in plates in all material over one-half inch in thickness 
shall be planed off at least one-eighth inch. 

In the specifications for the Quebec bridge, paragraph 93, it is 
provided: 

All sheared edges shall be planed off at least one-eighth inch. All chipping, 
whether of rivets or other parts, shall be done in a neat, workmanlike manner, 
without breaking out of metal. Each chipped surface shall be finished off with 
a file. Where metal is chipped or planed out of a plate or shape all concave 
corners shall be rounded off to a radius of at least 2 inches unless shown other¬ 
wise on the plans. 

Paragraph 94, same specifications, reads: 

Rolled edges through which stresses are transmitted by bearing shall be 
treated like sheared edges. 

The departmental shop-cost record furnished by the McClintic- 
Marshall Construction Co.—General Exhibit No. 26, volume 26, of 
the testimony—shows that the chipping on the lock-gate material 
cost $14,255.32, or 26.43 cents per ton. The chipping on material 
passing through shop 2 for the period from December, 1909, to No¬ 
vember, 1910, cost $2,931.97, or about 7 cents a ton. The chipping 
on all material that passed through shop 2 from January, 1913, to 
February, 1914, inclusive, cost $3,305.79, or about 8 cents per ton. 
The average cost of chipping for the two last periods was 7.53 cents 
a ton. This shows that the chipping on the lock-gate material cost 
18.90 cents more a ton than the chipping on material for the year 
preceding and the year succeeding the fabrication of the lock-gate 
material. In other words, the chipping of the lock-gate material 
cost about three and one-half times as much per ton as the chipping 
on material that passed through shop 2 for the year preceding and 
the year succeeding the fabrication of the lock-gate material. 

The quotations from the specifications above given indicate that 
the specifications under the lock-gate contract for these operations 
were more exacting than the specifications for the bridge work pass¬ 
ing through shop 2. 

As shown above, the great amount of chipping done on the coun¬ 
tersunk rivets would account for a large part of the excess cost of 
chipping on the lock-gate material, but as shown in the testimony 
referred to above, under the heading of “ Grinding rivet heads,” the 
chipping must have been more expensive under the requirements 
that were made than it would have been if the Contractor had been 
allowed to chip under the usual practice. The fact that he was re¬ 
quired to chip so accurately and leave the head of the countersunk 
rivet so flush that it would be necessary to do some grinding to make 
it smooth with the surface, indicates clearly that he was required to 
do this chipping with a great deal more care than he was required 
to do on the chipping of ordinary bridge work. 

A part of the increased cost of chipping was undoubtedly due to 
the excessive refinements that the Commission’s inspectors imposed 
upon the Contractor in connection with chipping the countersunk 


158 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


rivets. There was also some unnecessary chipping and grinding on 
the manhole covers. (See testimony of Messrs. Pittman, Reed, Ster- 
rett, Wolf el, and Price in testimony of Mr. Pittman, pp. 68 to 77.) 
This undoubtedly caused the Contractor some delay and some extra 
expense. 

On page 67 of Mr. Pittman’s testimony he states: 

It was required that we do an unusual amount of chipping and grinding on 
parts other than countersunk rivets. We were required to chip a great many 
sharp edges and grind them to a slightly round edge. This applies to the 
plates, manhole covers, ends of girders, A frames, and various other small 
pieces. 

In reply to a question of Mr. Sterrett, Mr. Pittman says: 

It was required principally in order to make the finished work look neat. 
(See p. 67, Mr. Pittman’s testimony.) 

Authority for requiring this would be under paragraph 40, which 
provides that: 

All sheared edges and ends of material shall be planed off to a depth of 
three-sixteenth inch, or as much more as may be necessary to remove the 
sheared surface of the material. Where planing is not possible they must be 
neatly dressed by chipping. 

Mr. Pittman states that was an unusual requirement and not cus¬ 
tomary on other bridge and structural work. 

The records of the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co., giving 
the departmental shop cost, sustain Mr. Pittman in this statement. 
Some of the chipping was probably unnecessary, but it does not 
seem to be fair to assume that no more chipping was required on 
this work than on the average work passing through shop 2 for the 
year preceding and the year succeeding the fabrication of the lock- 
gate material. The fact that there were 1,113,814 heads of counter¬ 
sunk rivets to be chipped in this work alone would indicate that 
there must have been much more chipping legitimately required on 
the lock-gate material than on all other work passing through shop 
2 for the year preceding and the year succeeding the lock-gate period. 

Finishing .—It is probable from the testimony that there was some 
unnecessary finishing done outside of the chipping that has been con¬ 
sidered above. There is no specific item for finishing in the depart¬ 
mental shop cost records of the Contractor, but it would seem from 
the testimony and from the records as kept that most of the work of 
finishing must have been charged under the heading of “ Chipping.” 
Some of this work was undoubtedly done merely to improve the ap¬ 
pearance of the structure. (See the testimony of Mr. Pittman, vol. 
12, pp. 67 to 77, and testimony of Mr. Price, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Ster¬ 
rett in connection with that of Mr. Pittman in that volume; also pp. 
102 to 107, inclusive, 116 to 122, inclusive, and 124 of vol. 10.) 

All of this cost the Contractor some more money and to a certain 
extent delayed the work. 

Vertical diaphragms and vertical frames .—The vertical dia¬ 
phragms consisted of the A frames and B frames, and the vertical 
frames consisted of the water-tight frames and the non water-tight 
frames. There were 2,804 A frames and 2,804 B frames in the 92 
leaves, and in the spare parts there were 110 A frames and 110 B 
frames. There were 2,544 water-tight frames and 4,696 nonwater- 
tight frames in the 92 leaves and 96 water-tight and 168 nonwater- 
tight frames in the spare parts. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


159 


Paragraph 23 of the specifications provides the manner in which 
the vertical diaphragms shall be made. This paragraph is as follows: 

The details of these are shown on drawings 5035 and 503G. The vertical 
sides and the top and the bottom surfaces are to be milled to the exact dimen¬ 
sions given on drawings, making a very close fit with the adjoining plates. Ver¬ 
tical diaphragms B in the bottom panel at quoin end of leaf must be made 
exactly as shown on the drawings and calked for water-tightness. 

Paragraph 24 of the specifications describes the manner in which 
the vertical frames shall be made. This paragraph is as follows: 

In each leaf there will be five transverse vertical frames built in between 
the horizontal girders and extending from the bottom to the top of the leaf, 
three of which must be made water-tight within the air chamber In the bottom 
panel of each leaf one of the nonwater-tight frames is made water-tight for a 
pump chamber. Details of all vertical frames are given on drawing No. 5035. The 
nonwater-tight frames are to be constructed of a web plate having double flange 
angles at the top, bottom, and ends and two vertical and two horizontal stiffen¬ 
ers. Each frame will have a manhole cut in the web so that free access can be 
had to all parts of the leaf; in the two lower panels of the 77-foot, 79-foot, and 
S2-foot leaves there will he reinforcing plates around the openings for manholes 
in the web, while in the 47-foot 4-inch, 54-foot 8-inch, and 66-foot leaves frames 
in the lowest panel only will have their web reinforced at manholes. 

The water-tight frames will be constructed similarly to the nomvater-tight 
frames, excepting that there will be no horizontal stiffeners and on one side 
the flange or bounding angles will he crimped over the flange angles on the 
horizontal girders. Tins crimping must be smithed in such a manner as to 
obtain a close fit of both of the bounding angles to the adjoining structural parts 
and insure good contact for calking. In no case will the use of steel shavings 
be permitted for filling openings where the crimping is poorly done. There will 
he a water-tight manhole in each frame, fitted up complete as detailed on plans. 
For sizes of material and riveting the typical detail plans must be exactly 
followed. The top and the bottom flange angles of all vertical frames shall be 
milled. 

On June 26, 1911, Mr. Goldmark wrote Mr. Hammer, giving his 
idea as to the accuracy with which the diaphragms A should be 
made. (See Exhibit No. 1 in Mr. Pittman’s testimony, vol. 12.) In 
this letter Mr. Goldmark stated: 

Referring to my letter of June 23, with regard to getting the ends of dia¬ 
phragm A and ends of webs in horizontal girders to line up flush, I went to 
Gatun to-day, and although I was unable to get about the ends of the girders 
much on account of my broken arm, I had a chance to see something of the 
fitting and discuss the matter at length with Mr. Guynn and Mr. Jewel. It 
appears that they were able to get a somewhat better line on these ends, but 
it is quite clear that if either the girders are too long or too short or the dia¬ 
phragms are not exactly 90° at their intersection with the ends of the top and 
bottom surfaces it will be impossible to get a good job. I will ask you, therefore, 
to pay special attention to these two points. I think, with regard to diaphragms 
A, that it would be absolutely necessary to have a very accurate square of steel 
made and to test these corners in each and every diaphragm before accepting 
same, insisting on accuracy of fitting at least along the web of the diaphragm 
and angles just adjacent to be almost absolutely perfect, which there should be 
no difficulty in doing. If the vertical connection angles at the ends of the 
diaphragm spring in or out a little we can doubtless correct this error by draw¬ 
ing them up against the end plates during assembly. 

In a letter to Mr. Hammer, dated June 23, 1911, Mr. Goldmark 
states: 

Considerable trouble has been found in getting the ends of diaphragm A and 
the ends of webs in the horizontal girders to line up with each other flush. In 
some cases the girder’s webs project; in others the diaphragms. The maximum 
difference is over one-sixteenth of an inch. This is a very important matter 
and I am writing you so that you may use every effort to obviate this trouble 
in the future. These diaphragms were inserted and brought forward so as to 


160 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


be as nearly flush as possible with the webs. In other words, the discrepancies 
are not due mainly to errors in the rivet holes. I am inclined to think that 
they may be due to the following two causes, or to one of them, namely, the 
girders may not be of exactly the right length when finished. In the second 
place, the diaphragms may not be exactly 90° between the tops and vertical 
ends. 

You can see that it is of the utmost importance to get great accuracy in this 
matter, as well as in the reaming out of the rivet holes for the connections 
which you are doing in the shop. I do not expect impossible accuracy in this 
or other matters, but the designs require a uniform bearing, both on the webs 
and on the diaphragms, and it is very slow process to grind out these variations 
in the field. 

If you do not feel entirely satisfied with the placing of the rivet holes, you 
had better omit the shop reaming and have these holes reamed out in the field, 
though I should regret making this move. 

In a letter to Mr. Hammer, dated June 22, 1911, Mr. Goldmark 
states: 

One or two of the A-frame connections are very bad, although I have not 
seen these myself, having broken my arm lately, so that I am unable to climb 
up the steelwork. 

In his testimony (pp. 49 to 52, vol. 8), Mr. Goldmark states: 

A. Well, I understand that we required that the angles should be so nearly 
90° that the difference in the length of the diaphragm or the height of the 
frame should not exceed one thirty-second of an inch—that I have from Mr. 
Price, that that was insisted upon. 

Q. Was that insisted upon with your knowledge and under your directions?— 
A. I am pretty sure it was; that that matter was taken up between Mr. Price 
and myself personally during one of my visits in Pittsburgh, the reason being 
that the gates had to be built up very accurately, and also that if the dia¬ 
phragms stuck out at the end you would not build your end plate up truly, 
because the 24-inch end plate that has been discussed in connection with the 
grinding, had to rest upon and be riveted to these end diaphragms. 

Now, in that case, it was important that the merged end of the horizontal 
girder and the end of the diaphragm A should match when they came together, 
and when you come to the next girder above that same A diaphragm had to 
match with the next girder, and the diaphragm above with that, and so on; 
and that is why that angle had to be very correct; and naturally, the rivets 
connecting the A diaphragms to the girders also had to be very accurate in 
their position in the girder and in their own individual spaces, or else, as 
happened in some cases, by bolting up the A diaphragm to the girders the 
A diaphragm stuck out into space, and it had to be ground off before you could 
attach the 24-inch end plate. And that is the reason, I think very properly, 
in the shop they insisted on very accurate holes and very accurate angles in 
the A diaphragm. But that is all. 

I would also say in that connection that when Mr. Price and I went over 
those, they were insisting that the entire end angles- 

Q. (Interposing.) Whom do you mean by “they” ?—A. Mr. Price and the 
inspectors in direct charge were insisting that the planing should be done very 
accurately and were rejecting various A frames and having them corrected, 
until they got very accurate results in the A frame. 

Q. Do the specifications indicate the degree of accuracy that was to be in¬ 
sisted upon in those frames?—A. They show them to be planed on all sides, 
if I am not mistaken, which would mean, I think, a great degree of accuracy, 
though I do not mean that is quite fair to say—I mean they could be planed, 
of course, to any angle. 

Judge Harrah. Do you make any special question of that, Mr. Wolfel? 

Mr. Wolfel. That is one of the points we are making. 

Judge Harrah. That is one of the points you are making, that there was too 
great a degree of accuracy required in the angles and the frames. 

Mr. Wolfel. One of the points we are making is that if extremely fine degrees 
of accuracy were required they should have been specified in the figures in the 
specifications. 

Judge Harrah. What I want to ask is, if you are making any point that the 
actual requirements as to these frames were unreasonable ones? Are you mak¬ 
ing that point now? 



McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


161 


Mr. Wolfel. There has been a good deal of trouble on the A frames, and I 
think you will find the people will claim the requirements were unnecessarily 
severe. 

Mr. Goldmark. I think Mr. Wolfel yesterday, in connection with the holes, 
said he thought in those A frames we were justilied in asking those to be cor¬ 
rect within one thirty-second inch. 

Mr. Wolfel. I agree to that, Mr. Goldmark, in reference to the position 
of those holes toward the base end of the girder, or toward the planed end of the 
diaphragm that butts up against the end plates. That is the point. 

Mr. Goldmark. Yes. 

By Judge Harr ah : 

Q. Mr. Goldmark, if the degree of accuracy that you have described here was 
actually insisted upon by the Isthmian Canal Commission’s inspectors, would 
you regard that as an unreasonable requirement under the specifications as 
drawn?—A. No, sir; I should not. We expected the gates to be plumb, and 
we expected the A diaphragms to be in contact with the girders, and that was 
the only way of getting it. I suppose that would come under the general desig¬ 
nation of first-class work; I do not know. I would like to say, however, that 
in the beginning of the work on the 77-foot, leaf the A diaphragm was not ac¬ 
curate enough and gave a good deal of trouble in the erection; and I think 
it was to the advantage of the contractor to have those A frames very accurate, 
because they had to grind them off where they were not. 

Mr. Price, in his report (p. 7, vol. 3, of the testimony) considering 
the diaphragms A and water-tight frames WF, states: 

Diaphragms A and water-tight frames WF were much more important mem¬ 
bers, and the limits of allowance were much more closely defined. Diaphragm 
A (Circular 57G) required to be “ milled on the vertical sides, and the top and 
bottom surfaces to the exact dimensions given on the drawings.” The limit 
of variation from a true square was placed at one thirty-second inch by Mr. 
Hammer, which, considering the necessity for accurate work, was reasonable. 
This was the theoretical limit, but it is possible that this limit was stretched 
enough to reach three sixty-fourths inch at times when all other conditions 
were favorable. 

That the inspection was not unreasonable and that the limit of one thirty- 
second inch was not too refined is demonstrated by the unsatisfactory condi¬ 
tion of a number of these A frames when erected in the leaves on the Isthmus, 
as shown in letters of June 22, 23, and 26, 1911, from Mr. Goldmark to Mr. 
Hammer, file 64. In a letter to the chief inspector, dated July 13, 1911, file 
117-1, Mr. Hammer refers to Mr. Goldmark’s letter, and in the final paragraph 
states that “ no inaccuracies should be tolerated in regard to the squareness 
of the A frames.” 

I quote from my letter to Mr. Hammer, dated August 11, 1911, file 117-1 : 

“A number of A frames have been held up by Mr. Wheatcroft on account of 
not being exactly square. I personally examined 10 of these frames to check 
up this defect, using a large steel square 5 by 4 feet, and found all to be out of 
square a certain amount, from one thirty-second to one sixty-fourth inch.” 

In my report to Mr. Hammer, dated July 17, 1911, file 70-2, I find this state¬ 
ment relative to condition of A frames: 

“ We have found in many cases the milling to be much rougher than is usual 
in first-class work.” 

Diaphragm A was not only one of the most important members in the lock 
gates, but it was a specially difficult member to assemble and mill within the 
required limits, one-sixteenth inch only on each side being allowed to true up 
to perfect square. Many corrections were made on these frames during the 
process of manufacture. Flange and connecting angles were rejected, also 
several web plates, but I have no record of any entire member having been 
rejected. 

The limit of allowance for the water-tight frames was more liberal than that 
required for the A frames. Variations to be not more than one thirty-second 
inch or less than one-sixteenth inch from the dimensions for height as shown on 
drawings, and plus or minus one-sixteenth inch for width. Except during 
certain periods, these frames required only minor corrections. 

That, according to my interpretation of the specifications and drawings, I 
considered it necessary for accuracy is shown in my report to Mr. Hammer, 


29249°—H. Doc. 906, 64-1-11 



162 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


August 1, 1911, file 117-1: “ The work is in many cases intricate and requires 
careful inspection.” 

That accurate workmanship was required is stated in the contract, page 6, 
article 111: 

“ It is further understood, covenanted, and agreed that all material and 
workmanship used and applied under this contract, in detail and finish, shall be 
first class and of the very best quality.” 

That the inspection was close in certain instances must be admitted, but it 
must be understood that the particular character of the work required it. 
Special attention was paid to the accuracy of the work on diaphragms A, and 
to the spacing of the holes in the girders for diaphragm A connections, and also 
length of girder and spacing of holes for sheathing. 

Special attention was also given to the water-tight frames. Each was made 
up of a continuous angle which was required to bear on the up-and-down-stream 
sheathing plates and webs of girders, and to crimp around the riveted and out¬ 
standing legs of the chord angles, and to fit close enough to calk for water- 
tightness.” 

Mr. Goldmark’s testimony and the letters quoted above give a very 
clear idea as to the accuracy he considered to be necessary for the 
fabrication of the A frames. The quotation from Mr. Price’s re¬ 
port gives a pretty accurate statement of the requirements made on 
the Contractor in an endeavor to carry out the specifications as inter¬ 
preted by Mr. Goldmark. 

In the testimony of Mr. Wheatcroft, who inspected most of the 
A frames, he gives his understanding as to the way he was to do this 
inspecting under his instructions. (See p. 4, vol. 13.) This state¬ 
ment is quoted below: 

My instructions through my chief were that these A frames were to be 
practically as near perfect as they could be made, with a limitation attached 
to those instructions of one-eighth inch on the top angles and one-eighth inch 
on the bottom angles, one-eighth inch on the front angles and practically no 
limitation on the rear, which was an angle of unimportance that we did not 
care much about. These frames were to be within one thirty-second inch in 
height to the estimated height. In the width of the A frame we allowed them 
to go as far as one-fourth inch—being unimportant, on account of an unim¬ 
portant B frame put up against it. The front end of this A frame must be 
absolutely correct to bear with the horizontal girders adjacent to it. 

The details in connection with the way in which Mr. Wheatcroft 
carried on the inspection of the A frames and what he required in 
connection with the A frames are found on pages 5 to 33, inclusive, of 
his testimony, volume 13. 

The testimony of Mr. Wheatcroft shows that these A frames were 
subjected to a very close inspection and that corrections were re¬ 
quired in a great many of them. This fact is clearly established by 
the testimony above referred to, and by an inspection of Mr. Wheat- 
croft’s shop reports and the notes contained therein. 

Mr. Price was present at the taking of this testimony, also Mr. 
Sterrett, Mr. Wolfel, and Mr. Reed, and the subject as to what was 
required was pretty thoroughly covered. 

An examination of the shop books of Mr. Wheatcroft shows that 
he was adhering very closely to the limitations that had been imposed 
as to the accuracy with which the diaphragms A should be made. 
Mr. Wheatcroft’s shop books contained very frequent notes of the 
A frames having thin angles or slotted holes. 

It also appears from the testimony of Mr. Wheatcroft (pp. 63 and 
64) that Mr. Goldmark severely criticized the character of the work 
that had been done on the A frames on the first contract, and stated 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


163 


that no more work of that character would be permitted in the lock- 
gate leaves, and insisted that the work should be more perfect. 

Mr. Reed thinks that at that time there were about 200 of these 
frames piled up in the yard. (See p. 66 of Mr. Wlieatcroft’s testi¬ 
mony.) He also states that he asked Mr. Goldmark how far he could 
go on them, and the answer that Mr. Goldmark gave was, “We want 
the best that can be got.” He states, “ That is the answer that Mr. 
Goldmark gave at that time.” 

Mr. Wolfel entered into an agreement with Mr. Hammer under 
date of October 27, 1910, as follows (see Exhibit 17 in the testimony 
of Mr. Wolfel, vol. No. 7) : 

MITERING LOCK GATES, ISTHMIAN CANAL COMMISSION. 

The following agreement has been reached in reference to the height of the 
various members in the leaf, so as to provide for vertical adjustment: 

(1) The water-tight frames will be milled one-sixteenth inch shorter than 
the theoretical height. 

(2) The nonwater-tight frames will be milled three thirty-seconds inch shorter 
than the theoretical height and one-sixteenth inch fillers used where necessary. 

(3) Diaphragms A and B will be milled three thirty-seconds inch shorter than 
the theoretical height. In order to provide adjustment in case the reinforcing 
plates and the webs on the horizontal girders should pack out more than is 
anticipated, these diaphragms will be milled about one-fourth inch short in every 
fourth panel. 

(4) The end reaction castings will be milled one thirty-second inch shorter 
than the height of the panel, and in order to guard against increase in height 
they will be milled one-fourth inch shorter than the height of the panel in 
every fourth panel. 

(5) The splice plates on the shin will be made one-sixteenth inch shorter 
than the theoretical distance between cover plates, the intention being to grind 
some of these plates off in the field in case it should be found necessary. 

(6) In the doubling plates at the ends of the leaf additional splices will be 
provided, so as to make them run over about four panels; and in order to insure 
a tight joint at the splice some of these plates will be made a trifle long and 
ground off in the field if found necessary. 

(7) The vertical end plates will be made in lengths of about four panels. 
They will be cut about 1 foot G inches above and below the joint of the bent plates 
and a short plate used, which plate will be made a trifle long and ground off 
in the field, so as to insure joints. 

(8) The built-up intercostals which occur at the ends of the leaf will be made 
one-eighth inch shorter than the theoretical length, and one-sixteenth inch 
fillers used where necessary. 

This agreement is subject to revision after the first leaf has been assembled 
here. 

Braddock, Pa., October 27, 1910. 

Paul L. Wolfel, Chief Engineer, 
McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. 

Approved: 

,T. Hammer, 

Assistant Engineer, Isthmian Canal Commission. 

It is claimed by the Contractor that in view of this agreement the 
close limitations that were imposed as to height of diaphragms were 
unnecessary. (See claimant’s brief, p. 47.) 

An examination of the shop books of Mr. Wheatcroft, who in¬ 
spected most of these A frames, shows that a great many of them 
were corrected—that in many cases the angles were reported as thin, 
although there does not appear to have been but very few rejections 
on this account. In other cases they were reported as being out of 
square and corrections were required; in other cases oblong holes 
were reported. 


164 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


The testimony of Mr. Price, volume 10, pages 36 to 38, quoted 
below, gives an accurate statement as to what took place in connection 
with the correction of the angles on the A frames: 

Mr. Marshall. I have always thought the excessive amount of work on the 
A frames was due to the inaccuracies of the commercial material which we 
received from the mills; especially on heavy angles it is very hard to get them 
at right angles. It is very hard to get these surfaces true surfaces. When 
assembling this material it was impossible to get perfect contact and perfect 
alignment; and in order to correct those inaccuracies it required an excessive 
amount of planing. It cost a large amount of rejections on account of this 
material not assembling in perfect contact. One of the very expensive parts 
of this work was the A frames and the B frames in the shop, and it was largely 
due to those causes. 

Mr. Price. That is right. That is what I spoke of, about those angles being 
straightened. 

Judge Harrah. I would like that sketch to go in as an exhibit in connection 
with Mr. Marshall’s statement. 

(The sketch referred to was marked “ Exhibit No. 3, Price.”) 

Judge Harrah (continuing). Mr. Marshall, do you think the inspectors 
required greater perfection in the fit and finish of those A frames and angles 
than ought to have been required in first-class workmanship? 

Mr. Marshall. I do; yes, sir. Those particular parts were finished with the 
accuracy of requirement of a machine-shop job. 

Judge Harrah. You were required to do that? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes, sir. 

By J udge Harrah : 

Q. Mr. Price, I will get you to state what was required on those angles and 
end plates that Mr. Marshall has pointed out under Exhibit 3.—A. One of the 
conditions that I have spoken about is shown on the sketch of Mr. Marshall; one 
angle is out of square; that is an acute angle; the other angle is fairly square. 
The heels of both angles are on a line with the end of the web plate. In mill¬ 
ing the A frame on the end of the A frame facing the bent plate to true up, 
the angle which is out of square will necessarily take off more material on 
the angle on the opposite side, and also on the heel of the angle which is out 
of square, than would be allowed by the variation that we had in the specifica¬ 
tions as to the thickness of the flanges. Is that clear? 

Mr. Marshall. I think the rest of us thoroughly understand it; but whether 
some person not familiar with shop practice will understand it or not, I do not 
know. 

By Judge Harrah : 

Q. What are the variations provided for in the specifications for the ultimate 
thickness of the flanges?—A. That takes in a general clause. If we call, for 
instance, for a half-inch angle, we would not accept a seven-sixteentlis-inch 
angle. But we were allowed, as I remember it, one-sixteenth inch below what 
was called for in the drawings. 

Q. Then if it became necessary to true up that angle to cut off the material 
so that it would be less than one-sixteenth inch below what was called for in 
the specification, you would take that as a cause for rejection?—A. For cut¬ 
ting that angle out; yes. 

Q. Did you regard that limitation as essential to secure first-class workman¬ 
ship in connection with that?—A. I certainly did. I think that was a liberal 
allowance—one-sixteenth inch. 

Q. Was there very much trouble in the shop in getting those angles right to 
your requirements 1 —A. Yes; very considerable. I notice that there is men¬ 
tioned in the shop book a number of times “ thin angle ” and a number of notes 
where I have repeated it. It does not state in the book I have mentioned or 
in the Wheatcroft book, that the angles were cut off for that reason. It men¬ 
tioned that they were thin—probably either up to or past the limit allowed. 

At the time Mr. Goldmark was at the works of the McClintic- 
Marshall Construction Co., in April, 1911, there were about 200 
A frames in the yard pile one on another, which had not at that 
time been given a close, detailed inspection. (See testimony of Mr 
Wheatcroft, vol. 13, p. 66.) 



McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


165 


Mr. Crane objected to the angles on the A frames. (See his testi¬ 
mony, pp. 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35, and sketch prepared to illustrate his 
testimony. Exhibit No. 6—all in vol. No. 5.) 

The objection of Mr. Crane to the angles on A frames was that 
they did not seat properly against the web and in correcting them the 
contractor used a sledge hammer to batter down the excess material 
on the web plate into the openings between the angles and the web 
plates. (See sketch, Exhibit No. 6, referred to above.) 

Subsequent to May 24, 1911, Mr. Wheatcroft inspected nearly all 
of the A frames. The rate at which the A frames apparently were 
fabricated and inspected is approximately shown in the table below: 


Number of A frames. 

May 24 to 31, 1911_ 15 

June 1 to 5, 1911___ 113 

June 6 to 17, 1911_ 103 

June 17 to July 11, 1911_ 106 

July 12 to 31, 1911_ 116 

Aug. 1 to 18, 1911_ 104 

Aug. 21 to Sept. 1, 1911_ 102 

Sept. 2 to 22, 1911_ 110 

Sept. 23 to Oct. 10, 1911___ 102 

Oct. 10 to Nov. 1, 1911_ 105 

Nov. 2 to 23, 1911_ 106 

Nov. 24, 1911, to Jan. 1, 1912_ 110 

Jan. 1 to 15, 1912_ 105 

Jan. 15 to 27, 1912_ 6S 

Jan. 28 to Feb. 16, 1912_ 107 

Feb. 16 to Mar. 5, 1912_ 104 

Mar. 5 to Apr. 17, 1912_ 101 

Apr. 18 to May 10, 1912_ 109 

May 11 to June 6, 1912_ 101 

June 7 to 23, 1912_ 102 

June 23 to Sept. 16, 1912_ 103 

Sept. 16 to Oct. 11, 1912___ 104 

Oct. 11 to Nov. 5, 1912_ 102 

Nov. 5 to 29, 1912_ 101 

Nov. 30, 1912, to Jan. 8, 1913_ 113 

Jan. 9 to Feb. 4, 1913_ 103 

Feb. 5 to 25, 1913_ 68 


Total_2, 683 


As to the A frames inspected by Mr. Wheatcroft, there is a record 
as to the condition of each one of them where there was anything 
unusual. 

Mr. Wheatcroft’s shop books covering the period from February, 
1911, to January, 1913, have been examined, and from these records 
it appears that of the 2,683 A frames of which there is a record, ap¬ 
proximately 2,250 were passed without any notation of any defects 
whatever. "Notations were made as to defects on approximately 400, 
but many of these were passed without correction, some of them were 
held up by Mr. Wheatcroft and subsequently passed by Mr. Price or 
Mr. Hammer. A good many others were sent back to the shop for 
correction, and the pieces of some of the A frames were required to 
be cut off and replaced. 

On May 24, 1911, out of 5 A frames inspected, there is a notation 
that 1 A frame contained 10 slotted holes. 

On May 31, 1911, Mr. Wheatcroft appears to have inspected 8 A 
frames and passed them all without question. 































166 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


On June 1, 1911, Mr. Wheatcroft’s shop books show 33 A frames 
inspected. Five rivets were cut out of these, two holes plugged, and 
one sent to shop to have top angle raised one-sixteenth inch. 

On June 2, 1911, there was a report of 49 A frames inspected by 
Mr. Wheatcroft, with the following notations: Replace one angle, 
account of round back. Straighten one angle. Six frames were to be 
corrected by raising the angle one-sixteenth inch. On one angle 
a 3J-inch hole for yoke pin was to be chipped out, and on one angle 
there was an open seam. 

On June 3, 1911, eight A frames were inspected and sent back to 
shop to have the angle at bottom raised one-sixteenth inch and angle 
at top raised one-sixteenth inch. 

On June 5, 1911, 25 A frames were inspected. Three were sent 
back to the shop; 1 to have angle raised one-sixteenth inch, 1 account 
of front angle being short, and 1 to have bottom angle raised one- 
sixteenth inch. All of these corrections were O. K’d by Mr. Ham¬ 
mer. 

On June 6, 1911, 32 frames were inspected—7 to be corrected, as 
follows: One had a 3^-inch hole cut in top angle for yoke pin. Three 
frames had front angle short one-sixteenth inch. One frame had 
wide seam in the front angle. One frame had front angle ruined— 
sent to shop for new set. In one frame there were four rivets to be 
replaced. 

On June 10, 1911, six A frames were inspected; two were to be cor¬ 
rected. A 20 R B clips replaced because holes were out one-fourth 
inch. A-8 sent back to have four holes countersunk. 

On June 12,1911, eight A frames were inspected. One sent to shop 
to have the top bars and short front angle cut off because of oblong 
holes. A-20 sent to shop to cut off the bottom angle, account of 
oblong holes. 

These are fair samples of the notes that run all through the record 
kept by Mr. Wheatcroft, with the exception that it appears that 
most of the corrections were made in the early part of the work. 
Although along in the latter part of 1911 and the first part of 1912 
a good many angles were held up, some of them passed without 
corrections and some of them corrected. (See memorandum pre¬ 
pared by Judge Harrah, giving notes taken from shop books of Mr. 
Walter P. Wheatcroft, from June 1, 1911, to Feb. 25, 1913, relative 
to A frames.) 

It seems that the estimate of the Contractor that 20 per cent of 
these A frames had to be corrected is entirely too high. The nota¬ 
tions made by Mr. Wheatcroft in his shop books at the time would 
seem to be the best evidence as to the number of corrections that were 
actually made on these A frames, and from these notations not 
more than 10 per cent could have been corrected—possibly less than 
that. 

There were 2,804 B frames in the 92 leaves and 110 in the spare 
parts. The specifications require that the vertical diaphragms B in 
the bottom panel at quoin end of leaf must be made exactly as shown 
on the drawings and calked for water-tightness. 

The B diaphragms were made very much like, and inspected in 
practically the same way, as the A diaphragms, although there are 
not so many corrections required in these diaphragms as there were 
in the A diaphragms. 


McCLIN TIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


167 


Some of the notations contained in the shop books of Mr. Wheat- 
croft from June 1, 1911, to January 27, 1912 (shop book No. 2), are 
given below: 

July 14, 1911: Seventy-six B frames inspected—following nota¬ 
tions: B-35, top clip low; B-43, jig out one-fourth inch, 2 pieces; 
B-43, top clip low; B-16, small bevel angles unfair; B-15, jig holes 
three-sixteenths inch out; B-2, large bevel, holes out in two pieces; 
B-2, jig holes out one-fourth inch; B-35, small bevel angles to cut 
off; B-16-L, top angle low. 

July 20, 1911: Fifty-three B frames inspected. B-24, jig hole 
out one-fourth inch; 13 pieces sent to shop for attention; 8 pieces 
returned O. K. September 12; 2 pieces September 15, and 1 piece 
September 22. 

July 29, 1911: Fifteen B frames inspected. B-24 sent to shops, 
jig holes at top angle; B-45, four holes plugged in each frame; 7 
frames passed O. K. 

October 5,1911: Thirty-eight B frames inspected. B-42, top angle 
low, O. Iv.; B-42-R, top angle low, O. K.; B-45-L, top angle low, 
O. K.; B-29-R, top angle low, O. K.; B-43-R, bevel angle holes too 
close for gauge—same as to 5-L, each O. K. Eighteen countersink 
bottom angles. 

November 27, 1911: Ten B frames inspected. B-24, 3 pieces bad 
holes, short bevel angles cut off; B-27, bad holes, end clips cut off. 

The number of B frames inspected during this period (June 1, 
1911, to Jan. 27, 1912) was 1,262. 

The notations in the shop books show that corrections and rejec¬ 
tions of the B frames were similar in character to those for the A 
frames. It is, therefore, not considered necessary to give the same 
details as to corrections made on the B frames as has been given on 
the A frames. 

Testimony other than that referred to above in connection with 
the A frames, which would apply also to the B frames, may be 
found at the following places: 

In Mr. Pittman’s testimony, volume 12, pages 77 to 96, 119, 120, 
165, 166, and 185. 

In Mr. Reed’s testimony, volume 10, pages 107 to 112. 

In Mr. Crane’s testimony, volume 5, pages 31 to 34 and 67. 

In Mr. Price’s testimony, volume 10, pages 5, 36 to 38 and 82. 

In Mr. Wagoner’s testimony, volume 19, pages 98, 119, and 123. 

In Mr. Wheatcroft’s testimony, volume 13, pages 4 to 33, 64 to 67. 

In Mr. Harber’s testimony, volume 18, pages 20 to 29 and 32 to 34. 

In Mr. Williams’s testimony, volume 14, page 5. 

In Mr. Neeld’s testimony, volume 23, page 57. 

There were not as many corrections made in the B frames as there 
were in the A frames. 

Vertical frames .—The vertical frames consist of diaphragms, 
water-tight, mark WF; 2,544 on the 92 leaves, and 96 for spare parts 1 ; 
also diaphragms, nonwater-tight, mark CF; total, 4,696 on the 92 
leaves, and 168 for spare parts. 

Under the original design the water-tight frames consisted of a 
web plate, with a so-called “ bounding angle ’’ around the edge. The 
frames were made to fit in between two adjacent girders and the 
sheathing. The “bounding angle” was required to be “crimped” 


168 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


at each corner to fit around the projecting girder angles. The con¬ 
tract drawings showed each “ bounding angle ” to be made up of 
four pieces; the ends of the four pieces being cut to 45 degrees bevel. 
These joints were intended to come, one on each side of the water¬ 
tight frame at a point not far from the center. It w T as intended 
that the four pieces of angle be cut to exact bevel and length, so that 
after assembling and riveting they would be in close and perfect 
contact throughout, and the joints could be caulked. (See exhibit 
26 in Mr. Pendergrass’s testimony, vol. 15, also for drawing showing 
full-size detail of cut in staple angle for water-tight frames see 
Exhibit No. 24 in Pendergrass’s testimony.) 

It was not practicable; in fact, it was almost impossible to make 
the bounding angle water-tight as originally designed. (See testi¬ 
mony of Mr. Wheatcroft, pp. 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40; also testimony 
of Mr. Pendergrass, pp. 64 to 65; see also statement of Mr. Nutting 
filed in “ Miscellaneous data.”) 

After expensive experiments in attempting to make the water-tight 
frames with the bounding angle, as originally designed, that design 
was abandoned. The water-tight frames as manufactured had bound¬ 
ing angles, same as originally proposed, except that the bounding 
angle for each frame was welded into one piece, making a bounding 
angle of the required dimensions before being assembled and riveted. 

It is claimed by the contractor that this was a more expensive way 
of making the bounding angle for the water-tight frame than that 
shown in the original design. The question as to the increased ex¬ 
pense in making this angle in this way will be considered separately 
hereafter under special consideration of claims for changes not cov¬ 
ered by the agreement of August 8, 1910. This claim will be consid¬ 
ered under C-8 Appendix, page 31 of original claim. 

The rate at which the water-tight frames were produced from June 
2, 1911, to February 25, 1913, as taken from the shop books of Mr. 
Wheatcroft, is shown in the table below: 

Number 

inspected. 


June 2, 1911, to July 15, 1911_109 

July 16 to 20, 1911_115 

July 21 to 24, 1911_ 95 

July 25 to 27, 1911_109 

July 28, 1911, to Aug. 17, 1911_ 93 

Aug. 18 to 22, 1911_ 172 

Aug. 23 to 28, 1911-_- 91 

Aug. 29, 1911, to Sept. 19, 1911_ 96 

Sept. 20 to Oct. 9, 1911_110 

Oct. 10 to 23, 1911_114 

Oct. 24, 1911, to Feb. 1, 1912_ 94 

Feb. 2, 1912, to May 2, 1912_322 

May 3 to 25, 1912_102 

May 26, 1912, to July 1, 1912_100 

July 2, 1912, to Aug. 14, 1912_102 

Aug. 15 to 30, 1912_100 

Aug. 31, 1912, to Sept. 6, 1912_ 27 


The principal corrections required in the water-tight frames and 
the reasons why they were required are shown on pages 35, 41, 42, 43* 
44, 45, and 46 of Mr. Wheatcroft’s testimony. (See Exhibit No. 1 
and Exhibit No. 2 in Wheatcroft’s testimony and explanations on 
pages of testimony above referred to.) 



















McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


169 


As^ to the corrections made in the nonwater-tight frames, see page 
47 of Mr. Wheatcroft’s testimony, volume 13. The principal correc¬ 
tions in these frames appears to have been on account of bad holes. 
Sometimes where the frames were excessively high the angles were 
removed and riveted back where they belonged. (See p. 47 of Mr. 
IVheatcrof t’s testimony.) 

Footwalk frames .—The footwalk frames were small, angular 
frames that were to be filled with concrete on the Isthmus and used 
for footwalks on top of the gates. There were approximately 2,840 
of them required. The Commission’s drawings allowed but one- 
eighth-inch clearance between the frames, and if they were out of 
square more than one-eighth inch they had to be corrected. (See tes¬ 
timony of Mr. Pitman, p. 54, vol. 12.) 

The Contractor claims that this small clearance in the original 
drawings was entirely unnecessary, and that they should have been 
allowed to build the frames smaller so as to have more clearance be¬ 
tween the frames when put in place. They were required to build 
the frames of the sizes called for on the drawings, and under this 
requirement they had great difficulty in keeping the frames to the 
exact dimension and squareness required. (See p. 54 of Mr. Pitt¬ 
man’s testimony.) In riveting the frames they were spread the least 
bit at the corner, and this would frequently throw them out more than 
one-eighth inch, the amount allowed. In order to avoid this, jig 
frames were built into which the sidewalk frames were fitted before 
the rivets were driven. The purpose of the jig was to hold the side¬ 
walk frames to the exact size. (See p. 54 of Mr. Pittman’s tes¬ 
timony.) 

It was necessary that the frames should be so square and so exact 
in size that when placed in position they would not overrun in 
length on the leaf. It was also necessary that they should have 
proper bearing when they were in position, so that they would not 
rock. It seems, however, that the Contractor had a right to believe 
that he would be allowed to adopt his ordinary methods in making 
these frames, and that if necessary he would be allowed a reasonable 
variation from the exact size shown on the drawing so long as this 
variation did not result in making the frames of the walk unsightly. 
The testimony also shows that in many instances the frames were 
bent and twisted in shipping, and had to be corrected after they 
reached the Isthmus, so that it would appear that the extreme 
squareness and accuracy in which these frames were required to be 
built in the shop was unnecessary. The evidence shows that this 
excessive accuracy in building the sidewalk frames and brackets cost 
the Contractor some money, and to some extent delayed the execution 
of the work. The amount to be allowed on this account can hardly 
be stated in dollars and cents as a separate item, but will be taken 
care of in connection with the general allowance made in claim 2. 

Rusting and 'pitting .—The contractor claims that there was an 
unnecessary amount of material rejected on account of rusting and 
pitting during the course of manufacture. Paragraph 58 of the 
specifications provides that: 

Material may be rejected at any stage of manufacture, fabrication, and 
erection for surface or other injurious defects, either previously existing or 
developed in working, although it bears the above-mentioned stamp, and shall 
be replaced by the Contractor at his own cost for material and labor. 


170 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


Paragraph 78 of the specifications provides that: 

Plates and shapes must be free from slag, foreign substances, brittleness, 
hard spots, laminations, sand or scale marks, snakes, pits, and defects generally. 

The records of the shop inspectors show that rejections were made 
as follows for rust pits: 


48G5. 1 bent plate, BP 17 L, owing to deep rust pits on each side- 1, 600 

4855. 1 bent plate, BP 17 R, on account of rust scales and rust pits. 

Sand blasting did not improve condition- 1, 600 

4855. 5 splice plates, S 24, rust pits_ 620 

8 splice plates, 24 A, rust pits_ 092 

4855. Footwalk filler and splice plates, 25 pieces minor parts- 1,100 

4863. 1 bent plate, BP 23, owing to rust pits- 2, S00 

11 wedges, UW 3 25_375 

1 26_120 

1 42_150 

1 44_125 

3 8_ 330 

2 32_250 

- 1,350 

90 bent plates, owing to rust pits_ 65, 055 

2 doubling plates rejected owing to rust pits— 

DP 52 R, owing to rust pits_2, 700 

DP 2 R, owing to rust pits_3, 275 

- 5,975 

4863. 5 footwalk brackets, PW 19-21-21A, owing to rust pits- 635 

2 chord angles, 6 by 3$ by \ _ 1, 530 

1 chord angle, 6 by 3i by -h _ 675 

(Owing to corrosion and rust pits.) 

4873. Bent plate, BP 24 R, owing to rust pits_ 580 


84, 512 

In the brief of the Contractor, page 50, it is stated: 

The rejection of a small piece of a finished member in a shop can be very 
annoying and cause great delay and expense. With the great number of in¬ 
spectors that the Commission had, if they were attending to their work, it is 
certainly inexcusable on their j>art to allow this material to be riveted into 
place if they intended to have it rejected. The cost of the material rejected 
might be very small, but the cost of cutting it out and replacing it with other 
material, considering the delay of holding the finished member in the shop until 
the work was done, would be very great. 

There is no doubt that it would be annoying and expensive to cut 
out small pieces of finished members in the shop. There is no ques¬ 
tion from the evidence but what in some cases this was done. It 
was, however, the duty of the Contractor, under the terms of his con¬ 
tract, to put only first-class material in the work. He can not be 
allowed to escape this duty on the assumption that the Commission’s 
inspectors should have observed that he was attempting to put 
material in the work that had been injured by rust pitting and 
stopped him from doing it. Such a position is entirely untenable. 
The question as to whether the material was injured by rust pitting 
at the time it was rejected is one that was necessarily left to the 
judgment of the Isthmian Canal Commission’s inspectors, and the 
whole question in this case as to the rejection of material for rust 
is one as to whether the Isthmian Canal Commission’s inspectors 
exercised an honest and fair judgment upon the facts as they saw 
them, or as to whether or not they were mistaken as to the extent to 
which the material was injured by rust pitting. 























McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 171 

The following material appears to have been rejected, due to rust 
pitting: 


On Aug. 21, 1912: 

Pounds. 

7 sheathing plates_15, 720 

2 sheathing plates_ 4, 500 

13 bent plates_ 7, 450 

32 wedges_ 8, 670 

1 web plate_ 610 

On Sept. 11, 1912: 

4 sheathing plates_ 5,180 

1 web plate___ 360 

36 wedges_ 9, 950 

159 frame angles_ 3, 430 

On Oct. 7, 1912: 

7 fillers_ 105 

3 foot walk angles_ 200 


Total rejected, due to rust pitting_56,175 


These rejections do not appear to have been applied to any par¬ 
ticular contract, and it is assumed that no work had been done on 
the material at the time of rejection, except the bent plates, which 
were bent at the mill before they were sent to the shop. 

The total amount of material rejected on account of rust pitting, 
of which there appears to be a record, was 140,687 pounds. In this 
amount there were 107 bent plates weighing 79,085 pounds. 

On July 16, 1912, Mr. Hammer gave instructions as follows: 

Confirming verbal instructions given you previously, you are advised to reject 
all material badly corroded or pitted, as only first-class material, free from 
rust of pit marks must be used for our work. (See Mr. Pittman’s testimony, 
p. 99.) 

The testimony in connection with the rejection of material for 
rust pitting is found in volume 12 of Mr. Pittman’s testimony, 
pages 96 to 115,132, and 133; Mr. Reed’s testimony, volume 10, pages 
150 to 159; Mr. Wagoner’s testimony, volume 19, pages 119 to 120; 
Mr. Johnson’s testimony, pages 102 to 104, volume 17; and Mr. 
Marshall’s testimony, volume 11, page 18. 

The contention of the Contractor is that in much of the material 
the rusting did not constitute an injurious defect. It is claimed by 
several of the inspectors of the Isthmian Canal Commission that 
when rust pitting once begins that there is no way of stopping it. 
(See testimony of Mr. Wheatcroft on p. 106 of the testimony of Mr. 
Pittman, vol. 12.) It is claimed by the Contractor, however, that 
where the material is thoroughly protected after it has been placed 
in the work, that there is no danger of the rust pitting continuing 
through the material. (See pp. 109 and 110, vol. 12 of the testi- 

m Mr. ^Sterrett, on page 108 of Mr. Pittman’s testimony, volume 12, 
states: 

Now, you know the whole contention in connection with the rejection of 
these bent plates is that the material should have been accepted because it 
was not exposed. 

This statement was addressed to Mr. Wheatcroft in the form of 
a question. Mr. Wheatcroft’s reply was: 

My experience is that the exposed metal goes—under water it is all right. 















172 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


The testimony also shows that at the time the question of rejec¬ 
tion first came up the plates were sand-blasted and then carefully 
measured by the Contractor Avitli micrometers, and there was no ap¬ 
preciable decrease in the thickenss. 

The whole question as to whether these bent plates should have 
been rejected is one of judgment between the Isthmian Canal Com¬ 
mission’s inspectors and engineers and the Contractor’s engineers 
and inspectors. The reason why it was particularly injurious to the 
Contractor to have all bent plates rejected is stated by Mr. Pittman 
on page 97 of his testimony, volume 12, as follows: 

There were 40 tons of the end bent plates that were rejected and had to be 
replaced. That 40 tons of material also was rather expensive, inasmuch as it 
represented not only the cost of the material but the cost of the bending at 
Homestead on the armor-plate press. The plates that were rejected were all 
bent; so that we had a considerable investment in them, besides the material. 

On page 96 of his testimony, Mr. Pittman states that: 

It was necessary for us to order all of these plates for the entire 92 leaves 
at one time, when the work was first started, owing to the fact that they were 
made in the armor-plate plant at Homestead, from dies which were built for 
the purpose; and when the dies were once put in it was, of course, the desire 
at Homestead to do all of the work at one time and thus avoid putting in the 
dies a second or third time. 

Mr. Pittman further states (p. 96) : 

During the interval of the time when these end bent plates were first rolled 
and the time that the last of them were used in the shop they became rusty 
and the inspector rejected a large number of them on this account. 

Mr. Wolfel made a very careful examination of these plates at the 
time, and he was of the decided opinion that they were not injured 
from rusting. Mr. Wolfel’s statement is found on page 103 of Mr. 
Pittman’s testimony, volume 12, and is as follows: 

Well, I looked at that material, together with Mr. Hammer and Mr. Price, 
after it was thoroughly sand-blasted, and I told them then that I would not 
hesitate a minute to take the material. In fact I told Mr. Hammer that it 
was a perfect sin to throw it out. 

Now, this applies the more so in this case, because in the leaves that ma¬ 
terial is either confined between other material or it is covered with bitumastic 
enamel. Now, if rusting is to continue, there must be exposure, there must be 
air, or moisture, or water; and neither air, nor moisture, nor water could get 
at this material because it was either confined between other plates and cast¬ 
ings or it was covered with bitumastic enamel. 

Further statements of Mr. Wolfel in connection with this can be 
found on page 104 of volume 12 of the testimony. 

The testimony of Harry M. Johnson, relative to the rejection of 
material for rust pitting, is found in volume 17, pages 96 to 104, in¬ 
clusive. Mr. Johnson saw some bent plates in the latter part of 1911, 
which he thinks were pitted one-eighth inch deep. Mr. Price thinks 
that they were one-sixteenth inch, probably more. (See p. 104, testi¬ 
mony of Mr. Johnson and others, vol. 17.) Mr. Wolfel states (same 
reference to testimony) : 

If the plates had had pits the full one-sixteentli inch I would not have asked 
for their inspection. I would not have asked for inspection on plates with pits 
one-sixteenth inch deep. I should think those pits would be one thirty-second 
inch. You know one thirty-second inch pit is quite noticeable, and one-sixteenth 
inch would be more so. 

The inspection of material for rust pitting after the letter of Mr. 
Hammer, of July 16,1912, was very exacting, and, in some instances, 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


173 


it was probably unreasonably so. When material had been used and 
placed in a finished member, the inspectors should have been very 
sure that it was pitted to such an extent that it would be injurious 
to the material before it was rejected. 

In view of the circumstances surrounding the rejection of the bent 
plates, your committee is inclined to give the benefit of the doubt 
in this transaction to the Contractor. This is done for the reason 
that the evidence shows that these plates would not be exposed after 
they were placed in the work, and the weight of the testimony seems 
to be that if the material is not exposed the pitting will not con¬ 
tinue. 

The rejection of material for rust pitting did delay the work of 
fabrication in the shop to some extent and caused the Contractor 
increased expense. Some of this increased cost was caused by the 
Contractor leaving the material in an exposed condition after it was 
purchased, knowing that it would possibly be three or four months 
and probably longer before the material would be used, notably the 
bent plates. 

Any allowance that may be authorized for material rejected on 
account of rust pitting will be made under claim 3. 

Turned bolts. —Paragraph 34 of the specifications provides that: 

All bolts connecting heel, pintle, and end reaction castings to the leaf shall be 
turned to a driving fit; the holes in the riveted structural parts must be reamed 
or drilled in the field to insure perfect fitting. Heads and nuts shall be hex¬ 
agonal and finished on faces touching plates. All threads shall be United 
States standard. Where necessary for water-tightness, the heads and nuts 
shall be calked or other provisions made by means of lead washers, etc., for 
preventing the entrance of water. 

The contractor bought a 2-inch triple bolt cutter with milling 
attachment to make these bolts. (See letter of Mr. Neeld of Nov. 
15, 1910; also list of “ Panama shop equipment ” purchased, quoted on 
p. 38 of this report, found in vol. 27 of the evidence.) Some of the 
bolts were manufactured by the McClintic-Marshall Construction 
Co. in the early part of the work, passed by the inspectors, and used 
in the work. After about June 1, 1911, the bolts were subjected to a 
close inspection. The limitation was fixed as follows: 

The diameter of the turned bolts should not be less than nominal diameter 
nor more than the nominal diameter plus 0.005. One-and-one-half-inch turned 
bolts may not vary from 1.5 to 1.505 inches. (See Mr. Price’s report, vol. 3, 
Appendix, p. 24.) 

The contractor does not appear to have been able to make the bolts 
in accordance with this limitation. (See testimony of Mr. George 
C. Barnes, vol. 16, pp. 127 to 139, inclusive.) 

Mr. Barnes states, on page 135, volume 16 of his testimony, that: 

After they had decided to award the contract for making bolts to the Pittsburgh 
Screw & Bolt Co., they gathered up all the bolts that they had in their shop— 
finished, partially finished, and unfinished—and shipped to the Pittsburgh 
Screw & Bolt Co. to be put in proper shape, and of that lot there was about 
60,000 pounds—I do not recall the total number of bolts—of which 29,000 
pounds were accepted and shipped to Panama, 31,000 pounds being returned to 
Rankin shops by the Pittsburgh Screw & Bolt Co. 

That assortment or inspection was made by the Pittsburgh Screw & Bolt 
Co., their own inspectors, and those that they sorted out as good were finished 
up, nuts put on them, and submitted to me for inspection. 

Q. Did you inspect them?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What kind of an inspection did you give them there at the Pittsburgh 
Screw & Bolt Co. ?—A. I went over each and every bolt; I had a table erected 


174 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


4 feet wide and possibly 40 feet long, covered with sheet iron. I had the bolts 
piled on one end of that table. I sat at that table on a stool and handled each 
and every bolt by putting the gauge on them and trying the nuts, and examined 
them for smoothness; if acceptable, they were passed onto a table, greased, and 
put in kegs ready for shipment; if rejected, they were put in kegs at my feet. 

Q. Did you carry out that inspection at the Pittsburgh Bolt & Screw Co. 
through the entire contract, until all of the bolts that were to be furnished 
under the contract had been finished?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you give all of the bolts that were furnished by the Pittsburgh Bolt 
& Screw Co. the character of inspection that you have described here?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you inspect the bolts that you received from the Pittsburgh Screw & 
Bolt Co. in the same manner and apply the same test to them that you applied 
to the bolts that were made by the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co.?—■ 
A. I did, sir. 

Q. Did you ever suggest to the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. that they 
had better let the contract for the making of the turn bolts to the Pittsburgh 
Screw & Bolt Co.?—A. Not that I recall, in an official way. I believe I made 
the remark to Mr. Boocks that I thought the bolts should be made by a bolt 
maker when there were such close limitations specified. 

Q. What was your reason for making that remark to Mr. Boocks?—A. Due 
to the condition the bolts were submitted to me for inspection as made by the 
McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. 

Mr. Stanley Kress did not make the bolts at the Pittsburgh Screw 
& Bolt Co., as he claims to have done in a letter of July 1, 1914, 
quoted on page 33 of this claim. This letter does not state the facts. 
(See testimony of Mr. Kress, vol. 18, pp. 1 to 11, inclusive; also testi¬ 
mony of Mr. Barnes, pp. 137 and 138, vol. 16.) All that part of the 
claim of the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. based upon this 
letter and what it shows is erroneous. The use of this letter in an 
attempt to establish a material part of this claim, without a more 
thorough investigation of the facts than was made, was inexcusable 
on the part of the contractor, and shows, to say the least, carelessness 
on the part of Mr. Pittman in assembling the evidence upon which 
they were to rely in support of their claim. Mr. Pittman doubtless 
believed that the letter as prepared by him stated the facts. (See 
testimony of Mr. Pittman in vol. 12, p. 138; see also vol. 15, Mr. 
Pendergrass’s testimony, pp. 114 and 115.) This did not, however, 
excuse him, in a matter of such importance, from verifying the state¬ 
ments before he allowed them to go into the record, and it shows 
carelessness in the preparation of the claim in this particular. 

On page 138, volume 12, a letter quoted on pages 32 and 33 of the 
claim was called to Mr. Pittman’s attention, and he was asked: 

Do you know this man S. Kress personally? 

Mr. Pittman. No ; I do not know him personally. 

Mr. Sterrett. Would you care to testify as to the correctness of that letter? 

Mr. Pittman. Well, I know that that letter was written by this man Kress, 
who first worked here and then went to the plant of the Pittsburgh Screw & 
Bolt Co. He is known by a number of our employees here at Rankin. 

Judge Harrah. I think we had better have Mr. Kress testify as to that. 

Subsequent to the testimony of Mr. Kress, Mr. Pittman was re¬ 
called to the stand and testified as follows (see pp. 114, 115 of Mr. 
Pendergrass’s testimony, vol. 15) : 

Judge Harrah. Mr. Pittman, on page 33 of the claim I find a letter that was 
written and signed by S. Kress. There is some testimony here, at the last 
session at Rankin, that you wrote that letter. 

Mr. Pittman. Do I know who wrote it? 

Judge Harrah. Did you write it? 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


175 


Mr. Pittman. Yes; I wrote the letter. 

Judge Harrah. Will you explain how you came to write it? 

Mr. Pittman. Why, the letter was based on information given to me by Mr. 
Boocks and Mr. Gusky; and Mr. Kress had stated to them in conversation the 
subject matter as covered by that letter. I merely wanted to get the matter on 
record and make it clear; so I wrote the letter, and Mr. Boocks and Mr. Gusky 
submitted it to Mr. Kress and asked him to read it- 

Judge Harrah (interposing). Well, you do not know what they said to Mr. 
Kress? 

Mr. Pittman. I do not know from personal knowledge; I was not there. 

Judge Harrah. You wrote the letter and turned it over to Mr. Boocks to be 
sent to Mr. Kress? 

Mr. Pittman. That is right. 

Judge Harrah. Had Mr. Kress said anything to you before you wrote the 
letter about what he knew about the case? 

Mr. Pittman. No; I never had seen Kress until he was here yesterday 
[meaning June 30 or “ the day before yesterday ”]. 

Judge Harrah. Then you wrote the letter supposing that it embodied the 
facts as you understood them? 

Mr. Pittman. Yes, sir; that is right. 

Mr. Sterrett. At the time, Mr. Pittman, that you handed that letter in to 
the Contractor, did you make an explanation at that time that the letter was 
written by you and signed by Mr. Kress? 

Mr. Pittman. No ; I did not make any explanation to anybody to that effect. 

Mr. Sterrett. That is all. 

The method under which the bolts were inspected was to have an 
accurate gauge made with one hole the exact size of the bolt and one 
hole five-thousandths inch larger in diameter than the size of the 
bolt specified. If the bolt would go into the smaller hole it was 
considered undersize and was rejected. If it would not go into 
the larger hole it was considered oversize, and the Contractor was 
required to correct it. A turned bolt should be so made that it will 
fit the hole so closely as to require gentle driving. It must also be 
smooth, accurately turned, and of uniform diameter throughout. 
In fact, the making of a turned bolt is practically a machine-shop 
job. The inspection of turned bolts was close, as it should have been, 
and the contractor did not make the bolts with such accuracy as to 
meet reasonable requirements as to turned bolts. 

The total amount of material that the Contractor appears to have 
ordered for making turned bolts in his plant is 198,598 pounds of 
steel rounds purchased from Jones & Laughlin Co. at $1.40 per 100; 
36,028 pounds of steel rods purchased from the Union Drawn Steel 
Co. at an average price of $2.26 per 100. They purchased 696,226 
pounds of finished bolts from the Pittsburgh Screw & Bolt Co., for 
which they paid $30,201.78. The total amount for which they were 
paid under item 2 was 904,426 pounds. It appears, therefore, that 
they were paid for 208.100 pounds more than they purchased from 
the Pittsburgh Screw & Bolt Co. They were paid for 51,066 pounds 
excess weight on bolts purchased from the Pittsburgh Screw & Bolt 
Co., on the grounds that these bolts were slightly heavier than those 
manufactured bv the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. For 
this excess weight they were paid $3,727.82. The total charged 
against item 2 in their books is 922,942 pounds. The total amount of 
material for which they were paid was 904,426 pounds, showing that 
the only material that thev could have lost or put in stock was 18.518 
pounds. It is possible, however, that the 51,066 pounds excess weight 


176 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


for which they were paid was not charged against the contract, and 
that a like amount of material may have been scrapped or put in 
stock that they bought from the Jones & Laughlin Co. 

The evidence in connection with the claim and whatever part of it 
that may depend upon the way the contract was executed in connec¬ 
tion with the turned bolts is such that no allowance can equitably or 
justly be made because of the manner in which the contract was car¬ 
ried out as to the manufacture of the turned bolts. 

Workmanship .—There is no doubt from the testimony that, after 
the first eight leaves were manufactured, the work was inspected in 
great detail, and that as turned out and accepted it was first class. 
Many of the details in connection with the inspection and the close 
limitations imposed have been heretofore set forth in this report. 
After the trouble with the assembly of the first leaf in the shop, the 
inspection appears to have been much more in detail, and the limita¬ 
tions appear to have been much more accurately and definitely fixed 
and adhered to. 

Most of the employees of the McClintic-Marshall Construction 
Co.—in fact, all of the employees that were called as witnesses—tes¬ 
tified as to the great accuracy required in this work as compared with 
other work that had gone through the shop. Most of the superin¬ 
tendents and shop inspectors and the engineers of the McClintic- 
Marshall Construction Co. have testified that the accuracy demanded 
was considered by them to be in excess of any reasonable requirements 
that might be made under the specifications. Mr. Guynn, Mr. Crane, 
and Mr. Price, who were chief inspectors of the Isthmian Canal Com¬ 
mission, all testified that they did not think that they were requiring 
any greater accuracy in the work than they were authorized to de¬ 
mand under the specifications, although Mr. Price did state he 
demanded great accuracy. Mr. Crane went so far, however, as to 
say that the first work turned out was not equal to the class of work 
that he had received from the contractor on other contracts for high- 
grade bridge work. 

Most of the shop inspectors of the Isthmian Canal Commission 
have been examined, and they all testify that a high degree of accu¬ 
racy in connection with the work was demanded, and, with the ex¬ 
ception of Mr. Harber, they practically all claim that their demands 
were necessary to secure first-class workmanship, or that they were 
making them under instructions from Mr. Hammer, who considered 
that the demands were necessary to secure first-class work. Mr. 
Hammer stated in his reports to Mr. Goldmark that a high degree of 
accuracy was being demanded and that the Contractors were working 
to obtain it. 

Mr. Oliver Harber, who was one of the Commission’s inspectors, 
considers that the inspection was unnecessarily severe. Mr. Harber 
was one of the inspectors whose work was most satisfactory to the 
Contractor. 

Mr. C. M. Neeld, manager of the Contractor’s Rankin shop No. 2 
from the beginning of the fabrication of the material to June 1, 
1911, was of the opinion that the Isthmian Canal Commission’s in¬ 
spectors and engineers demanded a higher class of work than the 
specifications called for. (See pp. 31 to 33 of his testimony, vol. 23.) 


McCLINTIC-MARSH ALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


177 


Mr. Pittman, the second manager of the Contractor at Rankin, 
testified that the work as manufactured was of a much finer grade 
than required by circular 576. (See vol. 1*2, pp. 8 to 10.) On page 
10 Mr. Pittman states what he considers the difference between high- 
grade structural work and high-grade bridge work, as follows: 

The principal difference is the somewhat superior workmanship in high-grade 
bridge work. f 

He thinks that the work would come under the heading of struc¬ 
tural work rather than bridge work. 

Mr. Connley, the general superintendent of the Contractor at the 
Rankin plant, states that the work was about two or three times 
better than any first-class bridge work he had ever seen going through 
the shops. (See p. 9, vol. 22;. 

Mr. Reed, superintendent of shop 2 at Rankin, states that he had 
never seen anything like the requirements of the inspectors in all 
the time he had been in the business. (See p. 87, vol. 10.) 

The different foremen in shop 2, at Rankin, testified that the 
work of the lock-gate material was much harder than any work they 
had ever had any experience with. This testimony is found in vol¬ 
ume 20. 

Mr. Wagoner, the Contractor’s shop inspector, thinks that the work 
as gotten out was of a finer grade than called for in the contract. 
(See vol. 19, p. 96.) Mr. Wagoner states that— 

The inspectors were overexacting in requiring unimportant dimensions and 
details and excessive finishing and, I would say, handling. 

Mr. Guynn, the first chief inspector on the work, says that he does 
not think Mr. Hammer was demanding a higher class of work under 
the specifications than was justified. (See p. 29 of his testimony, 
vol. 6). He does state, on page 28, however, that— 

Mr. Hammer adhered very closely to the specifications, and we wanted it, and 
exacted it, as near perfect as it could be gotten. They were held very close to 
the specifications. 

Mr. Crane does not think the work as turned out at the time he 
was there was first class, as required by the specifications, and in 
accordance with the instructions given him by Mr. Goldmark. (See 
p. 38, vol. 5.) He does state, however (p. 99), that— 

I felt this way, that the work was a national work, and that everyone should 
see that the work that went down there should be just as near perfect as pos¬ 
sible, because, as I stated then, and have stated since, I felt that it would be 
criticized and examined by engineers from every nationality all over the world, 
and I went on with the expectation of doing the fair and honest work for both 
sides. 

Mr. Crane says on page 100: 

There was not a thing there that we asked for that wasn’t fair, square, 
straight requirements of the specifications, as I looked at it. 

Mr. Price, the chief inspector of the Isthmian Canal Commission 
from May 8, 1909, until February 15, 1913, states that he does not 
consider that the Commission’s engineers and inspectors received 
any better work than the character of the work demanded. Mr. 

29249°—H. Doc. 906, 64-1-12 


178 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


Price followed Mr. Hammer’s instructions very closely, and Mr. 
Plammer was demanding great accuracy in the work. The details 
heretofore given in this report illustrate fully the character of the 
workmanship that was required on the lock gates. (See quotation 
from Mr. Price’s testimony, pp. 129 to 134, inclusive, of this report.) 

The comparison of the shop cost of the lock-gate material with the 
average departmental shop cost of all material passing through 
shop 2 from 1909 to 1910 and from 1913 to 1914, made on page 49 
of this report from data furnished by the McClintic-Marshall Con¬ 
struction Co., in volume 27 of the evidence, shows in what particu¬ 
lar operations the cost of fabricating the lock-gate material was 
greater than the cost of fabricating other material with which 
it was compared. This comparison also indicates wherein the exces¬ 
sive demands of the Isthmian Canal Commission’s inspectors, if any, 
were made, and it is thought that this departmental shop cost of the 
various operations probably furnished a better basis of comparing 
this work with other work than any general statements of inspectors, 
superintendents, etc. 

There were four operations that entered into the departmental 
shop cost of this work and also into the general expenses of fabri¬ 
cating this material that are practically peculiar to it, so far as the 
operations of the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. are concerned, 
and in comparison with other work passing through shop 2 for the 
year preceding and the year succeeding the fabrication of the lock- 
gate material. These operations are pickling, sand blasting, the use 
of the large bulldozer, and the use of the duplex milling machine. 
The statement below shows the increased cost of fabricating this 
material that was due to these operations: 


Plant and material, pickling-$ 14 , 9 ig. 10 

Shop cost of pickling- 6 , 318. 75 

Sand-blast machine-$3, 724. 83 

Dust arrester, sand-blast, elevator, and separator_ 2, 208. 52 

Additional sand-blast machine- 753. 36 


6 , 686 . 71 

Credit- 500. 00 

- 6,186. 71 

Shop cost, sand-blast_^- 13 , 002. 00 

No. 9, Wm. White bulldozer_ 9, 975. 20 

Remodeling crane over new bulldozer_ 180. 27 

2 cast-iron dies for bulldozer_ 1,130. 49 

Bulldozers- 590. 06 


11, 876. 02 

Credit (account bulldozer)_:_ 2,250.00 

- 9, 626. 02 

Shop cost, bulldozer- 6 , 390. 89 

1 duplex milling machine_ 10 , 485.11 

Clamps for duplex milling_ 42. 53 

Table for plate milling machine_ 278. 63 


10, 706. 67 

Credit- 3, 000 . 00 

- 7, 706. 67 

Shop cost, duplex milling- 3 ,184. 75 


Total--- 67,333. 89 




























McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


179 


The total expenses for these operations was $67,333.89. This is 
equivalent to an increase in the tonnage price of the material of 
$1,244 per ton. 

It is also shown that in pickling and sand blasting the material a 
great many defects were developed that in all probability would not 
have been discovered in other material passing through the shops. 
The rejection of material for surface defects developed in pickling 
would increase the handling charges and would increase the adminis¬ 
trative expenses in connection with such material and would tend, 
to some extent at least, to reduce the output in the shop. 

These four operations are treated separately and put in a class bv 
themselves, for the reason that they are peculiar to the lock-gate 
material, so far as any comparison of lock-gate material is to be 
made with other material passing through shop 2 for the year imme¬ 
diately preceding and the year immediately succeeding the fabrica¬ 
tion of the lock-gate material. 

The record of rejections at the pickling plant for surface defects 
shows that the following material was rejected for such defects: 


Pounds. 

286 sheathing plates- . _1)07,326 

39 web plates_ 24,640 

5 doubling plates- 7,239 

18 bent plates_ 11,020 

68 wedges_ 18,620 

159 frame angles_ 3,430 

10 splice plates_ 1,135 

4 intercostal angles_ 120 

6 footwalk angles- -— - 420 

7 fillers_ 105 


Total_____ 974, 055 


It is probable that the greater portion of this material was replaced 
by the mills, but the cost for pickling and the shop cost of handling 
the rejected material would be increased by reason of this operation. 
For detailed list of the above material, dates of rejections, see Ex¬ 
hibit 8 of Frank Price’s supplemental testimony taken at Rankin, 
June 30, 1915, General Exhibit No. 18. 

All these details are important as tending to show the inherent 
difficulties which attended to the fabrication of the lock-gate material, 
independently of any unreasonable or unnecessary demands that may 
have been made by the Commission’s inspectors. 

A further very interesting comparison of this work with other 
work can be made through the departmental shop cost, as furnished 
by the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. 

Assuming the average departmental shop labor cost per ton for 
the years 1909 to 1910, inclusive, and from 1913 to 1914, inclusive, as 
the normal, and comparing the departmental shop labor cost of the 
lock-gate material with this as a normal, we find, as shown in the 
table on page 186, that in all the main items of cost the fabrication of 
the lock-gate material was much above the normal. The table 
(p. 186) gives the item to which the cost is applied, the average cost 
per ton for the year preceding and the year succeeding the fabrica¬ 
tion of the lock-gate material, the average cost of fabricating the 






















180 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


lock-gate material, and the percentage of the normal with the fabri¬ 
cation of the lock-gate material cost: 


No. 


Description of item. 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 


Making templates. 

Making patterns. 

Unloading. 

Plate straightening. 

Running in. 

Stockyard. 

Shearing. 

Laying off. 

Trucking in L. O. and P. depts 

Punching. 

Punching cont. washers. 

Drilling. 

Milling. 

Edge planing. 

Bending and straightening. 

Fitting. 

Trucking in F. and R. depts... 

Making jigs. 

Reaming. 

Subpunched reaming. 

Countersinking. 

Machine riveting. 

Hand riveting. 

Cut out and redrive rivets. 

Rotary planing. 

Boring. 

Calking and riveting ladders... 

Grinding. 

Chipping. 

Blacksmith shop. 

Machine shop. 

Running out. 

Storing. 

Loading and bracing. 

Indirect labor. 

Painting. 


Total. 

Add for pickling, bulldozer, and sand blast 


1909 to 1910 
and 1913 to 
1914 (com¬ 
bined). 

Lock-gate 

material. 

Per cent 
of normal. 

0.2773 

0.0927 

0.334 

.0115 

.0009 

.782 

.1191 

.1275 

1.070 

.0441 

.0629 

1.426 

.1187 

.1021 

.880 

1 .0400 

.0590 

1.475 

.2174 

.2491 

1.145 

.3110 

.4209 

1.353 

.1241 

.1462 

1.178 

.6074 

.9062 

1.491 


.0027 

(2) 

.1038 

.2020 

V 1.948 

3 .0010 

.1171 

117.100 

.0260 

.2277 

8.757 

.0341 

.0580 

1.700 

1.1444 

1.3177 

1.121 

.1177 

.1540 

1.308 

.0002 

.0139 

69.500 

.2441 

. 1055 

.432 

.3470 

.9440 

2.720 

0) 

.1185 

( 2 ) 

.7180 

.6111 

.851 

.2614 

.0292 

.111 

( 5 ) 

.2410 

( 2 ) 

.1096 

.2704 

2.467 

.0141 

.0086 

.610 


.0333 

( 2 ) 


.0162 

(2) 

.0753 

.2643 

3.909 

.1607 

.7689 

4.784 

.1537 

.2002 

1.302 

.1176 

.1948 

1.648 

.0014 

.0016 

1.142 

.1270 

.1580 

1.244 

.4328 

.3565 

.823 

.1820 

.2073 

1.139 

6.2425 

8.7900 


.0091 






6.2516 

8.7900 

1 408 


1 Welding and duplex milling. 2 No normal. 3 Pickling. 4 Bulldozer. B Sand blast. 

The detailed comparison of the departmental shop cost above given, 
and the percentage in the various operations above normal on the 
lock gates almost uniformly support the proposition that the work¬ 
manship on the lock-gate material, as to the principal operations, 
was of a higher grade than the average workmanship of all material 
that pased through shop No. 2 for the year immediately preceding and 
the year immediately succeeding the lock-gate material, unless we 
are to conclude that practically all the expenses above the normal 
in the various operations were due to excessive requirements of the 
Isthmian Canal Commission’s inspectors. Some of the expenses above 
normal, in some of the operations, were undoubtedly due to require¬ 
ments in excess of those authorized under the specifications, and the 
workmanship as to a part of the shop operations was better than the 
Commission was fairly and justly entitled to receive under the speci¬ 
fications and the modifications made in those specifications in the 
agreement of August 8, 1910. Making due allowances for these ex¬ 
cesses, however, the lock-gate material does appear to have been more 
difficult to fabricate and more expensive than the average material 
passing through shop No. 2 for the year immediately preceding and 





















































McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


181 


the year immediately succeeding the fabrication of the lock-gate 
material, by reason of the better class of workmanship that was 
rightly required under the specifications for the lock-gate material. 
Ihis special class of workmanship that was necessary on the lock- 
gate material does not, however, explain all the increased cost in the 
fabrication of the lock-gate material. 

The first paragraph on page 15 of the Contractor’s claim in sup¬ 
port of claim 2, viz: 

That the Commission’s engineers and inspector demanded and received shop- 
work of a much more refined and costly character than that called for by the 
contract— 

is substantially established by the testimony of witnesses, records, and 
documentary evidence referred to, quoted from, and conmented on 
above. 

Organization .—The second contention in support of claim 2 
(p. 15) is: 

That for a long time both the engineering and inspecting organizations of 
the Commission at the shop were inadequate to handle the work. 

The organization that was established for the inspection of the 
lock-gate material at the Contractor’s plant at Rankin, Pa., consisted 
of an assistant engineer, a chief inspector, and such other inspectors 
as were deemed necessary. The assistant engineer that was placed 
in charge was Mr. J. Hammer. His first chief inspector was Mr. 
George F. Guynn. Mr. Guvnn was in charge as chief inspector from 
August 8, 1910, to about March 1, 1911. (See testimony of Mr. 
Guynn, vol. 6, and his report to Col. Hodges dated Dec. 15, 1914, 
attached to his testimony.) 

Mr. William H. Crane was the second chief inspector at Rankin. 
He was around the shop familiarizing himself with the work during 
a part of February. 1911, and up to March 6, 1911, when he became 
chief inspector. He was chief inspector until May 5, 1911. (See 
testimony of Mr. Crane, vol. 5.) 

Mr. Frank Price was the third chief inspector. His period of 
service extended from May 8,1911, to February 15,1913. (See testi¬ 
mony of Mr. Price, vol. 10, and his report, vol. 4, of the evidence.) 

Mr. Guynn conducted the inspection on the theory that errors in 
the work w r ould be developed by the assembly of the first leaf in the 
yard, and he did not attempt to do a great deal of detailed inspection, 
except in cases where the errors would not develop in the assembly 
of the first leaf. He went over his work thoroughly before he left 
for the Isthmus, and made a report on conditions. (This report is 
Exhibit No. 1, in vol. 6; see also pp. 64, 65, and 66 of this report.) 
He had a sufficient number of employees to conduct the inspection 
in the manner in which it was being done by him. (See vol. 6, p. 41.) 
He did not have help enough to give the material a detailed inspec¬ 
tion, such as is usually given to material for the Panama Canal. (See 
testimony of Maj. Boggs, vol. 23, p. 66 % ) 

The organization under Mr. Guynn was adequate to inspect, as 
Mr. Guynn was inspecting, but was not adequate to give a detailed 
inspection such as was afterwards conducted. After the assembly 
of the first leaf and Mr. Hammer had requested that all girders 
should be checked up with steel templets great congestion took place 


182 


McCLINTIC-MABSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


in the yard as a result of this check and the uncertainty as to what 
should and what should not be accepted. This condition continued 
from February 15, 1911, until Mr. Goldmark visited the work in 
April, 1911, and even for some time thereafter. (See Goldmark’s 
testimony, pp. 35 and 3G, vol. 8.) 

Owing to the great increase in the work, due to a change in the 
method of inspection after the assembly of the first leaf, the force 
of inspectors was inadequate to handle the inspection from February 
15, 1911. until some time in June, 1911. (See testimony of Mr. 
Price, pp. 30 and 31, vol. 10.) 

During the time that Mr. Crane was chief inspector the chief 
engineer of the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. wrote Mr. 
Hammer a letter (Apr. 18, 1911), complaining that a large amount 
of material was in the yards ready for inspection and stating that— 

You will see from this that our shop is always ahead of your inspection force. 
It is further unquestionably true that our shop is gaining on your force all 
the time, which makes the situation become more aggravated every day. If 
relief is not furnished soon, the time is not so very far off when we will 
practically have to shut down our shop in order to enable your men to suffi¬ 
ciently catch up with the inspection until such a time that the congestion is 
sufficiently relieved for us to resume operations. 

Mr. Crane replied to Mr. Hammer in detail to this complaint 
under date of April 19, 1911. A copy of the letter of the claimants 
and of Mr. Crane’s reply is attached to the testimony of Mr. Crane, 
volume 5, and for ready reference copies are also attached to this 
report. This reply of Mr. Crane is a record made at the time, and 
from it it would not seem that any considerable amount of material 
could have been in the yard so placed as to be ready for inspection. 
The details of conditions as they existed at that time are given fully 
by Mr. Crane. The last paragraph of Mr. Crane’s letter is as follows: 

True the force is small, but had there been forethought and proper protection 
provided against the inclement weather and proper placing and arrangement 
of the material for the inspector for the past 60 days every item ready on 
contract No. 4845 would have long since been inspected, and much of the girder 
work on No. 4847. During the two weeks’ let-up on work in the shop the shop 
inspector was practically idle. He has inspected the intercostals after sand 
blasting; also the I beams and every beam and intercostal in the yard could 
have been finally disposed of had they been ready. The inspectors have worked 
overtime. Personally I have been on the work at 7 a. m. surface inspecting the 
output of night sand blasting, check weighing, and getting painting done. There 
is seldom a day the inspectors do not lose two to four hours waiting on crane 
service. Doubling the inspecting force is very proper, but will be useless unless 
positive effort is made by the company to provide and arrange the material 
properly for inspection. 

It is established, however, from all the evidence that the inspection 
force was inadequate for the period from February 15, 1911, to 
some time in June, 1911. But it is also established that the Con¬ 
tractors were not entirely without fault. (See Mr. Crane’s letter to 
Mr. Hammer of Apr. 19, 1911, referred to above.) The material was 
not properly placed, nor proper protection given to provide against 
inclement weather, and there was also some interruption in crane 
service, all aggravating the inadequacy of the inspection force. 

The third contention in support of claim 2 (p. 15) is: 

That the Commission’s shop inspectors were at times unreasonable, inde¬ 
cisive, and inconsistent, creating in the shop organization a state of uncertainty 
as to what would be acceptable to the inspectors. 


McCLTNTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


183 


Paragraph 43 of the specifications provides: 

All workmanship must he first class in every particular, and all methods 
used during manufacture shall be satisfactory to the chief engineer or his 
authorized representatives. Material undergoing fabrication will be inspected 
by the inspectors employed by the Commission. All material coming from the 
mill shall be perfectly straight before any work is done upon it at the Con¬ 
tractor’s works. 

Article III of the contract provides in part that: 

It is further understood, covenanted, and agreed that all materials and 
workmanship used and applied under this contract in details and finish shall 
be first class and of the very best quality, and that all materials, both in the 
form of raw materials and at every stage of manufacture, and all workmanship, 
slxi 11 from the beginning to the end of the work be subject to the inspection 
of the chief engineer of the Commission or his authorized representa¬ 
tive. * * * 

It is further understood, covenanted, and agreed that the Commission’s in¬ 
spectors may at any time reject any or all work or material not in accordance 
with this contract, and the right to reject any and all defective work or material 
shall continue until final inspection and acceptance and payment for material 
and work herein provided for, regardless of any prior inspection, payment, or 
act of the Commission, and such defective or unsatisfactory material or work 
shall lie promptly removed, remedied, or replaced by the Contractor without 
expense to the Commission. * * * 

Article XII of the contract provides: 

All qustions relating to final inspection and acceptance of the materials and 
workmanship to be furnished hereunder, or the failure of such materials and 
workmanship to comply with the specifications, or to the causes and extent of 
delays in delivery or erection, shall be determined by the chief engineer of the 
Commission, or by any officer or deputy to whom the chief engineer may assign 
that duty, and such decision, when expressed in writing, shall be final. 

The greater the power conferred on an officer under a contract as 
to the decision of disputed questions, the greater the duty to exercise 
an honest and fair judgment. (Ripley v. United States, 223 U. S., 
695.) 

There were but few limitations fixed in the contract to which the 
contractor should work, and what should be considered as first-class 
material and workmanship within the meaning of the contract was 
left largely to the judgment of the Commission’s engineers and in¬ 
spectors. 

The questions as to whether or not it was reasonable to require the 
accuracy that was demanded in the spacing of the holes and as to 
whether or not it was reasonable to change the size of the holes so 
that a greater per cent of them might be made to clean up in ream¬ 
ing, as well as many other questions relating to the reasonableness of 
the accuracy demanded in other details of the work, have heretofore 
been considered. 

Whether a shop inspector was reasonable or not in particular cases 
would depend upon whether or not such inspector was following the 
specifications and drawings or the instructions of his superior as to 
the way the specifications and drawings should be construed with 
such variations as are allowed in usual practice. 

The limitations in details heretofore considered and the dimensions 
called for by the drawings were followed very closely by the shop 
inspectors and work was sometimes held up by the shop inspectors 
that was subsequently passed by the chief inspector, and sometimes it 
was submitted to Mr. Hammer and he would occasionally pass it 


184 


MeCLIN TIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


over the chief inspector. (See the letters quoted on pp. 27, 28, 29, 
30, and 31 of the claim.) 

Mr. Neeld testified as follows (see pp. 30, 31, and 32 of vol. 23) : 

It is charged here in the claim of the Contractor “ That the Commission’s 
shop inspectors were at times unreasonable, indecisive, and inconsistent, creat¬ 
ing in the shop organization a state of uncertainty as to what would he accept¬ 
able to the inspectors.” 

Q. Did that condition exist while you were there?—A. Yes, sir; it did. 

Q. In what respect?—A. Well, 1 think that describes it almost as well as I 
could, that the different ones would go around measuring a thing and fussing 
with it, and they would not definitely stamp up anything—practically nothing; 
I would not say they would not stamp anything—so that we could not tell 
whether it was going to be accepted or rejected, or whether part of it was 
going to be rejected, or what attitude they were going to take; and sometimes 
it would lie there for days; and sometimes out in the yard it would lie there 
for weeks. 

Q. Did that condition exist while Mr. Guynn was there?—A. Well, to a 
greater or less extent, it did; I do not remember how long Mr. Guynn stayed 
there. My impression now is that Mr. Guynn was a little more decisive. But 
even while he was there, as I recollect, there was a good deal of that holdup. 

Q. Well, did you know Mr. Crane?—A. Well, you know, I have forgotten 
Crane; I undoubtedly did know him. 

Q. Did you know Mr. Hurlston?—A. I knew Mr. Hurlston, yes, very well. 

Q. Did you know Mr. Wheatcroft?—A. He was a little fellow, I believe? 

Q. Yes.—A. Yes; I remember him. 

Q. Did you know Mr. Gause?—A. I do not recollect him. 

Q. Mr. Gause seems to have been the person who did the measurements of 
the holes in that early part of the work.—A. Well, I do not recollect him now. 

Mr. Wolfel. Pardon me, Judge. Mr. Gause’s work was confined to checking 
holes in the webs of the girders; he had nothing to do with checking the open 
field holes in the outstanding legs of the flanges of the girders. That was done 
by Mr. Spencer and our men and some of the other inspectors. 

Judge Harrah. All right. Well, did you know Mr. Spencer? 

Mr. Neeld. I do not recollect Mr. Spencer now. 

Q. Well, what you do recollect about it is that you had trouble in getting 
that work through?—A. I had trouble in abundance, so much so that I do not 
know but that it had something to do with my leaving Rankin, as I thought 
life was too short to bother with inspection of that kind ; it was terribly aggra¬ 
vating. 

Q. Did you have any trouble to get work inspected when it was ready for 
inspection?—A. To get a final say on it; yes. Of course, it was inspected 
galore; there was no shortage in looking over it and finding fault with it, and 
this thing and that, and turning it over, and all of that; but as to real inspec¬ 
tion, to say “ This will go,” and “ This is absolutely rejected,” we had diffi¬ 
culty. 

Q. Well, is it not a fact that the principal difficulty and the principal reason 
why they were not passing that work finally was because of the fact that 
there were defects in it, and they were waiting for some higher authority to 
determine whether or not the defects they claimed to exist were sufficient to 
reject it?—A. Well, as I recollect it in sizing it up now, they seemed to place 
determinations and demand a class of work that they had no* right to do. 

At a meeting in Mr. Marshall^ office April 12, 1911, the subject of 
the character of the inspection being made while Mr. Crane was 
chief inspector was considered, and in reply to a question as to what 
objections were made to his methods of inspection Mr. Crane stated 
(see pp. 83 and 84 of vol. 5) : 

Judge Harrah. Now, Mr. Crane, can you state what seemed to be the general 
objections to the Contractor to your method of inspection during this con¬ 
ference? 

A. Well, there were two or three criticisms; first was the close inspection 
and the slowness of the inspection in measuring in detail all of these girders 
Mr. Hurlston and Mr. Barnes were placed together on the measuring and 
checking of these girders; checked about two girders a day. When we got 
ready to ship they were there doing that work—rat the time Mr. Price came and 


McCLINTIC-MARSIIALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


185 


at the time Mr. Goldmark came there. I think—I do not know—they criticized 
the slowness of our inspection, of course. I remember Mr. Reed criticized the 
inspection of the A frames and some of the other frames— B frames and such 
as that—that were being done by Mr. Hurlston. He was assigned to do that 
part of the inspection. I do not think we had any criticism from Wheatcroft 
on the plate work. Wheatcroft kept up pretty well on the plate work. (See 
also pp. 73 to 88, inclusive, vol. 5, of testimony.) 

Mr. P rice's views on this part of the claim were (see pp. 32, 33, and 
34 of vol. 10) : 

Q. We find this charge on page 15 of the claim: 

“ That the Commission’s shop inspectors were at times unreasonable, in¬ 
decisive, and inconsistent, creating in the shop organization a state of uncer¬ 
tainty as to what would be acceptable to the inspectors.” 

A. Well, I have always thought that that clause referred to a time before 
May 15—or the latter part of May—because we had a good inspection force 
after that time, and we were following the work right in the shop, inspecting it 
in the shop. 

Q. Well, were you deciding questions when they would be raised; did you 
decide them promptly?—A. There were very few questions that were not 
decided promptly. That question I have mentioned about the A frames; that 
came up later, though. 

Q. Well, would you decide to-day that something was all right, and then a 
week later come to the conclusion that you ought to require something more?— 
A. I do not think we ever required more than the limit that was allowed; that 
is, we were allowed for the squareness of the A frame one-thirty-second inch. 

Q. But you do not seem to get my point: Did you have any rules by which 
you would be governed in the inspection of the material, and were your de¬ 
cisions as to what would be passed by your inspectors consistent throughout?— 
A. I think they were. 

Q. Did you ever have any complaint from the shop inspectors or from Mr. 
Reed about having accepted material that you were talking about rejecting, 
or complaints about having accepted like material to that you were then con¬ 
sidering for acceptance or rejection? Were there complaints that your de¬ 
cisions were not consistent and regular?—A. I believe that there were at times, 
and I think it happened in this way: We were allowed a limit of allowance— 
for instance, I am taking the A frames now, because I think there was more 
trouble on those than on any other. We were allowed a limit of allowance of a 
variation from the square of one-thirty-second inch. Now, if the conditions were 
all right and good in other respects, we sometimes would allow more; we 
would pass them when they were more out of square than that. And the shop 
men knew that; they were there when we examined them. The next day 
they would possibly want to go more than the limit, possibly go one-sixteenth 
inch out of square. That might be passed, and then the next day, when they 
were a trifle more than that, we would not pass them; we had to stop at some 
point. 

Q. Well, when you reached those points, did you decide them right away?— 
A. I do not think there was much trouble about that; they were decided pretty 
quick. My inspectors would hold the work up for me as I passed through once 
or twice a day, for decision. 

The subject of delays in deciding questions that arose from day to day as 
the work went through the shop is discussed by Mr. Pittman and Mr. Price on 
pages 150 to 168 of Pittman’s testimony, volume 12. 

Without further quotations from the testimony, the facts are that 
work was sometimes held for correction for an unreasonable time 
that should have been passed, and decisions in some cases were not 
as promptly made as they should have been. There was some uncer¬ 
tainty in the shop organization of the Contractor as to just how far the 
limitation could be exceeded without having the work held up. This 
is shown by the testimony of Mr. Price, quoted above (p. 53, vol. 10). 
It is also shown in the letter of Mr. Reed of March 12, 1912, copied 
in the claim, page 30, with respect to the footwalk frames. The shop¬ 
men must have known that there would be some deviation allowed by 


186 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


the shop inspectors from the exact dimensions shown on the drawings 
and from the limitations fixed by instructions. It was in this zone 
that most of the clashes between the Commission’s shop inspectors 
and the shopmen and shop inspectors of the Contractor took place. 
The personal equation played a large part in these clashes. This 
personal equation ran all through the work, and it was an ever¬ 
present question between the shopmen and shop inspectors of the 
Contractor and the shop inspectors of the Commission as to what was 
good enough from the viewpoint of the Contractor’s shopmen and 
shop inspectors to meet the requirements of the contract under usual 
practice and special instructions of their superiors, and as to what 
was good enough from the viewpoint of the Commission’s inspectors to 
meet the requirements of the contract as interpreted by them from 
the approved shop drawings, the specifications, and the instructions of 
their superiors. The difference in the personal equation undoubtedly 
resulted in frequent clashes between the Contractor’s shopmen and 
shop inspectors and the Commission’s inspectors, and probably caused 
more of the work to be held for correction or to be corrected than 
was usual and ordinary in the shop where it was being inspected, 
and probably more than the Contractor had a right to believe from 
the character of the work and the manner in which it was fabricated 
would be held up. (See testimony of Mr. Wagoner, pp. 97 to 109, 
vol. 19.) 

The inspection after February 15, 1911, was consistently close and 
in detail, so much so at times as to be unreasonable. There was occa¬ 
sionally some delay in deciding questions that arose in connection 
with the work. The slow method of operation seems to have been 
due largely to the head of the shop organization. The Contractor 
had a right to expect greater promptness. Where there is an as¬ 
sistant engineer in charge of an inspection force it is to be expected 
by the Contractor that he will sometimes overrule his subordinates, 
but it is also to be expected by the Contractor that he will so organize 
and instruct his force that there will be a minimum of difference 
between his requirements and the judgment of the individual in¬ 
spectors as to what should be accepted without question. The Con¬ 
tractor also has a right to expect that when questions do arise which 
must be decided by him that he will act promptly. 

If we apply the rule that “ What should satisfy a reasonable man 
does satisfy,” the shop inspection was at times unreasonable. If we 
apply the rule that “ What is to be decided should be decided 
promptly,” the inspection as a whole was at times indecisive. 

The mere fact that a superior overrules his subordinate does not 
prove that the subordinate is inconsistent. It tends to prove that he 
was wrong in that particular case, and it may also prove that he has 
taken his instructions too literally or that he has not been given the 
proper instructions, or, if it occurs very often, that he does not 
exercise the proper judgment. 

The testimony seems to indicate that the shop inspectors in an 
excess of zeal, or from an exaggerated idea of the importance of the 
work, or because of their instructions in relation to the work, were 
at times demanding more than they had a right to. On the other 
hand, the shopmen and shop inspectors were attempting to stick too 
close to bridge and structural work and not making the proper allow- 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 187 

since for the difference between the lock-gate work and other work 
that the shop had been used to fabricating. 

1 liese two facts undoubtedly created some uncertainty in the 
shop organization as to what would be acceptable. The extent to 
which the Commission’s inspectors were responsible for this condi¬ 
tion and the damage to the Contractor resulting therefrom should 
be borne by the Government, and will be taken into consideration in 
passing on claim No. 2. 

There is testimony tending to show that sometimes delays would 
occur in inspecting material after it was ready, owing to the failure 
of the Commission’s inspectors to report for duty at particular times 
or places and act as promptly as it was considered by the Contractor’s 
shopmen and superintendents that frhey should. It is claimed by the 
Contractor that such action on the part of the Commission’s inspectors 
was in excess of anything that might have been reasonably expected 
under the contract, and that it operated to delay and interrupt shop 
operations. 

These claims are generally denied and explained by the Commis¬ 
sion's inspectors, it being claimed by the inspectors that in many 
cases where delay was claimed the material was not properly placed 
for inspection, or that in some cases they might be engaged on other 
inspections at the time when it was desired to have particular 
members inspected. It is also claimed by the Commission’s inspec¬ 
tors that they reported promptly for duty and were willing and 
ready at all times to inspect material that was properly placed for 
inspection. One of the reasons why there may at times have been 
apparent delay in making inspections promptly was the different 
hours during w T hich the Commission’s inspectors worked and the 
Contractor’s shop men and inspectors worked. The Commission’s 
inspectors worked eight hours. They reported for duty at 8 in the 
morning and worked until 12, took one hour for lunch, and quit at 
5. The Contractor’s employees reported for duty at 7 in the morn¬ 
ing, took one-half hour for lunch, and worked until half past 5, 
making a 10-hour day. 

It does not seem to your committee that it would serve any useful 
purpose to enter into an examination of the evidence in detail on 
this feature of the claim. The evidence shows that the Commission’s 
inspectors were competent to perform the duties to which they w T ere 
assigned, and that they were men of good habits, and many of them 
of long experience. The close limitation to which they were re¬ 
quired to work has heretofore been considered. 

Except for the period prior to June, 1911, the inspection force 
was reasonably well organized for the purpose of conducting the 
inspection promptly, and was reasonably well supervised by Mr. 
Price, the chief inspector, from May 8, 1911, to the end of the fabri¬ 
cation of the work. 

The personal equation in connection with the large force did, how¬ 
ever, at times, to some extent, affect the organization, and there would 
be delays and interruptions in the work, and possibly to a greater 
extent than the Contractor might reasonably have expected. (See 
testimony of Mr. Conly, vol. 22, pp. 14, 32, and 33; Mr. Reed, vol. 10, 
pp. 94 to 102, 136, 137, and 143 to 146; Mr. Pittman, vol. 12, pp. 211 
to 217; Mr. Crane, vol. 5, pp. 73 and 105 to 111; Mr. Price in vol. 18, 


188 


MeCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


pp. 102 to 112; Mr. Wagoner, vol. 19, pp. 106 to 108 and 112 to 114; 
Mr. Hurlston, vol. 14, pp. 57 to 60; Mr. Wheatcroft, vol. 13, pp. 59 
to 62 and 68 to 72; Mr. Gause, vol. 22, pp. 49, 50, and 54; Mr. Harber, 
vol. 18, pp. 55 to 63, 70 to 72, and 80 to 84; Mr. Williams, vol. 14, pp. 
11 to 24; Mr. King, vol. 17, pp. 122 and 123; and the Contractor’s 
shop men in vol. 20.) 

The general effect of such delays and interruptions, to the extent 
that their effect on the work can be valued, will be taken into con¬ 
sideration in the allowance to be recommended under claim 2. 

Essential facts in relation to claim 2 are established by the evidence, 
as follows: 

(1) That the actual average cost per ton of fabricating the lock- 
gate material was greatly in excess of the average cost per ton of 
fabricating all other material that passed through shop 2 for the 
year preceding and the year succeeding the fabrication of the lock- 
gate material. 

(2) That the average cost per ton should have been more for fabri¬ 
cating the lock-gate material than for fabricating all material pass¬ 
ing through shop 2 for the year preceding and the year succeeding 
the fabrication of the lock-gate material instead of less per ton. 

(3) That the fabrication of the lock-gate material in the shop was 
done “ under requirements as to character and finish not fairly 
within the meaning of the specifications.” 

(4) That the average cost per ton of fabricating the lock-gate 
material in the shop was increased by reason of the work having been 
done “ under requirements as to character and finish not fairly 
within the meaning of the specifications.” 

(5) That the only way by which the excess cost of fabricating 
the lock-gate material in the way that it was done over what it would 
have been if it had been fabricated under normal and usual inspec¬ 
tions and under requirements as to character and finish fairly within 
the meaning of the specifications is to determine what was a fab¬ 
normal price for fabricating lock-gate material, taking into consid¬ 
eration the inherent character of lock-gate material and such ab¬ 
normal conditions as must have increased the average cost per ton 
of fabricating the lock-gate material over other material with which 
it is compared and for which the Contractor was responsible. 

(6) That in arriving at a normal cost per ton for fabricating the 
lock-gate material, under conditions for which the Contractor was 
wholly responsible, the average cost per ton of fabricating all mate¬ 
rial passing through shop 2 from December, 1909, to November, 
1910, inclusive, and from February, 1913, to January, 1914, inclusive, 
owing to the manner in which the records of the McClintic-Marshall 
Construction Co. are kept, must be taken as a true normal and used 
as a basis of comparison in determining what should have been the 
normal average departmental shop cost and general expenses per 
ton for fabricating the lock-gate material under conditions not 
chargeable to excessive requirements and demands made by the Com¬ 
mission’s engineers and inspectors. 

(7) That taking the average departmental shop cost per ton of 
the different operations under which the shop cost is carried for all 
material for the year preceding and the year succeeding the fabri¬ 
cation of the lock-gate material and comparing the cost of these 
operations with the cost per ton of the same operations performed 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


189 


on the lock-gate material we find that the departmental shop cost 
for fabricating the lock-gate material should have been as shown 
in the table below: 


Item 

No. 


Character of operation. 


Explanation. 


Amount. 


1 

2 

3 

4 


5 

6 
7 


8 


9 

10 


Templets (wooden) 


Patterns. 

Unloading. 

Plate straightening 


Running in 


Duplex milling 
Shearing. 


Laying off 


Trucking in L. O. and P. de¬ 
partments. 

Punching... 


•The average for year before and year after is taken as a 
normal for lock gates. 

The Winner bridge, the Beaver bridge, and Pittman’s 
estimate all fix this charge at 6 cents; Wolfel thinks it 
is one-third too high (see vol. 38, Exhibit 1, and 
Wolfel’s statement in same). Charge fixed at. 

The Winner bridge 8 cents, the Beaver bridge 10 cents, 
Pittman’s estimate 9 cents. Average for year before 
and year after, $0.1187. Fixed at. 

Not questioned. 

Shearing Winner bridge 18 cents, shearing Beaver 16 
cents. Average charge year before and year after lock 
gate, $0.2174. Special attachment for shearing edges 
bought. Think it must have been as much as the aver¬ 
age tor year before and year after. Wolfel thinks one- 
third of shearing unnecessary. Fixed at average. 

Average for year before and year after, $0.3110; Beaver, 
$0.3000; Pittman, $0.2000. Evidently too low. Part 
of charge for templets in this. Fixed at average plus 
$0.0500 for templets. 

Average charge 0.1241, Winner bridge 0.1000, Beaver 
0.0800, Pittman 0.1500, Wolfel 0.0974. Fixed at. 

Average year before and year after lock gate 0.6074, 
Wolfel 0.6200, Pittman 0.6200, actual 0.9062. Very 
large number shop rivets and field holes should account 
for at least half of increase over normal. Charge fixed 


$0.0927 
.0009 
.1191 


.0600 


.1000 


. 0590 
.2174 


.3610 


.1300 

.7500 


11 


Punching construction wash- 


at. 

Not questioned 


.0027 


12 


13 

14 


15 

16 


17 


18 


19 

20 


ers. 

Drilling 


Pickling. 

Edge planing 


Bending and straightening... 
Fitting. 


Trucking in F. & R. depart¬ 
ments. 


Making jigs. 


Reaming. 

Subpunched reaming 


Average, year before and year after, 0.1038; Pittman, 
0.1300; Wolfel, 0.1300; Winner, 0.1300; Beaver, 0.1000. 
No evidence to account for large increase for year 
before and year after. Large number of thick, heavy 
plates had to be drilled. Actual charge, 0.2020. Add 
2 cents per ton for templates, 2 cents per ton for large 
number of field holes to Pittman’s and Wolfel’s esti¬ 
mate of 0.1300. Fixed charge at. 

No record to compare with. Actual cost,0.1171. Pitt¬ 
man’s and Wolfel’s testimony, 0.1100. Charge fixed at. 

Average for year before and year after, 0.0260; very low. 
Winner,0.0800; Beaver,0.0600; Pittman,0.1600: Wolfel, 
0.1600. A great deal more planing on lock gates than 
average material. Special planers bought for lock 
gates. Actual charge, 0.2277. Charge fixed at. 

Winner, 0.0200; Beaver, 0.0400. Estimate by Pittman, 
0 . 0600 ; Wolfel, 0.0400. Actual charge, 0.0580. Average 
year before and year after, 0.0301. Fixed at. 

Average charge, year before and year after, 1.1444; Pitt¬ 
man’s estimate, 0.8900; Wolfel’s, 0.6600; Winner, 

1 1000; Beaver, 1.1000. 62 per cent of material fitted. 
62 per cent of 1.1444 is 0.7095. Add 0.1112 for yard labor, 
assembling, would make 0.8207. This is about 10 
cents below Pittman’s estimate. Average fitted 
material for lock gates must have been 20 per cent 
harder to fit than average for all material for year 
before and year after. 20 per cent of 0.8207 is 0.1641. 
Charge fixed at. 

Average, year before and year after, 0.1177. Actual 
charge, 0.1540. Pittman’s estimate, 0.1500; Wolfel’s, 
0.1232; Winner Bridge, 0.0800; Beaver, 0.1200. Charge 
fixed at. 

Not questioned.-..... 

These two items will be considered together. Pittman 
fixes the charge for reaming at 10 cents, and the charge 
for subpunched reaming at 58 cents; total for two, 68 
cents. Wolfel says the two should be considered 
together, and fixes the charge at 95 cents for the two. 
The two for the Beaver Bridge was 68 cents. A very 
considerable amount of this work was due to reaming 
interior connections—paragraph 32, Goldmark agree¬ 
ment. The total actual charge for the two operations 
was 1.0495 per ton. The excess over 95 cents per ton 
was probably due to close inspection. Charge fixed 
at 95 cents per ton. 


.1700 


.1100 

.1700 


.0500 

.9848 


.1400 


.0139 


.9500 



































190 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO 


Item 

No. 


Character of operation. 


Explanation. 


21 


22 


24 


25 


26 

27 


28 

29 


30 


31 

32 


33 

34 

35 


36 


Bulldozer. 


Machine riveting 
.Hand riveting... 


Sandblast. 


Rotary planing 


Boring. 

Calking and riveting ladders 


Grinding 

Chipping 


Blacksmith shop 


Machine shop 


Running out 


Storing. 

Loading and bracing 
Indirect labor.. 


Painting, 


This is an operation practically peculiar to the lock gates. 
Large, new bulldozer purchased; broke down once 
which would affect the cost. Pittman’s estimate 8 
cents, Wolfel’s 0.0790. Actual charge 0.1185. Charge 
fixed at 0.1000. 

These two operations considered together. Total aver¬ 
age per ton for two, year before and year after lock-gate 
work, 0.9794. 62 per cent of this total for the two op¬ 
erations would give 0.6072. Pittman’s estimate for 
the two operations, 0.4500. Winner bridge, 0.9400. 
Beaver bridge, 1.000. Wolfel’s estimate for two, 0.4695. 
There is about 140 shop rivets per ton in 62 per cent of 
the tonnage of the lock-gate material. This is con¬ 
siderably in excess of shop rivets for equal tonnage on 
average work. The actual cost was 0.6430. Charge 
fixed at 0.6072. 

This operation is peculiar to lock gates. Actual charge, 
0.2410. Wolfel’s estimate, 0.2169. Pittman’s, 0.2400. 
There was some extra work in this operation and prob¬ 
ably some interruptions. Charge fixed at. 

Average, 0.1096. Actual charge, 0.2704. Pittman’s esti¬ 
mate, 0.1600. Wolfel’s estimate, 0.1600. Winner and 
Beaver bridge, 0.1600. Evidence shows special planers 
bought for lock gates—must have been more than aver¬ 
age planing, very probably more than Beaver and 
Winner bridge. The evidence does not explain the 
difference between 0.2704 and 0.1600. This charge 
.fixed at 0.2000. 

Not questioned. 

.do.,. 

These two operations will be considered together. No 
charge for grinding year before and year after lock 
gates—charge for chipping, 0.0753. Actual charge for 
lock-gate material: Grinding, 0.0162; chipping, 0.2643. 
Total for two, 0.2805. There was undoubtedly some 
extra grinding on rivet heads and probably on other 
parts. The chipping on rivet heads was 'more diffi¬ 
cult because of the way it was required to be done. 
Pittman’s estimate for the two operations was 0.2300. 
Wolfel’s estimate, 0.1245. Chipping on Winner bridge, 

. 0.0600; Beaver bridge, 0.1000. Charge fixed at. 
Average charge, year before and year after, 0.1607. Ac¬ 
tual charge, 0.7689. Pittman’s estimate, including 
bulldozer, 0.69.00. Wolfel’s estimate, without bull¬ 
dozer, 0.6151. Shops specially equipped for water¬ 
tight work; special blacksmiths hired. Pittman’s 
estimate, including bulldozer, probably too low. 
Wolfel’s estimate too low. After allowance of claim 
for extra on account of bounding angle hereafter to be 
made, charge fixed at. 

Pittman, 0.0900; Wolfel, 0.1075; Winner bridge, 0.0800; 
Beaver bridge, 0.3800. Average, Winner and Beaver! 
0.2300; 62 per cent of 0.23 fixed as charge. 

Pittman, 0.1900; Winner, 0.0800; Beaver, 0.1400; year 
before and year after, 0.1176; actual charge, 0.1948. 
Evidence shows considerable extra work in this op¬ 
eration. Wolfel thinks charge entirely too high- 
should not be over 0.1176. Charge fixed at. 

Not questioned. 

_do. 

This charge only covers the period from May , 1912, until 
the lock gates were finished. No evidence to show any 
great excess during this period. Pittman’s estimate 
0.28. Wolfel fixes it at 0.2560. This would amount 
to an allowance on this item alone for the period from 
May, 1912, to February, 1913, of $5,440. This seems 
excessive. The charge is fixed at. 

There was some interruption in painting due to the 
character of the paint. Mr. Pittman’s estimate, 0 1300- 
Winner bridge, 0.1400: Beaver bridge, 0.2000; Wolfel 
makes no comment. Year before and year after 0 1820 
Lock gates probably more difficult to paint than 
average material. Charge fixed at. 


Amount. 

$ 0.10000 

- .6072 

.2300 

.2000 


.0086 

.0033 

’ 

• . 2000 

.6900 

.1426 

.1700 

.0016 

.1580 

.3400 


.1900 


Total per ton 


7.5228 


This computation is based upon a total tonnage of 53,943. 

(8) That at a normal cost for the departmental shop labor of 
$7.5228 a ton the total normal departmental shop labor cost would 
be $405,802.40. 







































McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


191 


If we take 91.3 per cent of the departmental shop labor cost as a 
normal general expense, the normal general expense for the lock-gate 
material would be $6.87 per ton. At $6.87 per ton for general 
expenses, 53,943 tons would cost $370,588.41; $405,802.44, the normal 
departmental shop labor cost, added to $370,588,41, would make 
$776,390.85. We should add to this $52,488.94 for special equip¬ 
ment. We should also add for general expenses for purchasing cast¬ 
ings $14,658.56. The increase in general expenses for the lock-gate 
period, due to loss of output in shop No. 1, was 69 cents a ton on 
53,943 tons, or $37,220.67. This should also be added. 

This increase in general expenses due to loss of output in shop No. 1 
is found as follows: 

The total tonnage for shop 1 for the lock-gate period was 58,406. 
This divided by 26 would give 2,246 tons as the monthly output. The 
tonnage of shop 1 for the 12 months immediately preceding and the 
12 months immediately succeeding the lock-gate period was 73,725. 
This is equal to an average monthly tonnage of 3,072. This multi¬ 
plied by 26, the number of months in the lock-gate period, would 
give a tonnage of 79,872 for shop 1 if the average had been main¬ 
tained during the lock-gate period. The general expenses per ton 
during the lock-gate period in shop 1 was $7.62. At this rate, if we 
compare with a tonnage of 79,872, or for 26 months, the total general 
expenses for shop 1 for the lock-gate period would have been $608,- 
624.64. At $6.35 per ton (79,872 tons), the total general expense 
would have been $507,187.20. This shows a total increase in general 
expenses due to loss of output in shop No. 1 of $101,437.44. The 
total assumed tonnage on which this is based is 126,351 plus the dif¬ 
ference between 58,406 tons, the actual tonnage of shop 1, and 79,872 
tons, the assumed tonnage, making 147,817 tons on which the increase 
is based; $101,437.44 divided by 147,817 gives 69 cents as the increase 
per ton in general expenses due to loss of output in shop 1. There 
should be added to the cost of the lock-gate material $0.69X53,943, 
or $37,220.67. As heretofore shown, there should also be added 30 
cents per ton increase caused by breakdowns in the powerhouse, or 
$16,182.90. 

On the basis stated, the total departmental shop labor cost and 
general expenses properly chargeable to contractor would be as 
follows: 


Normal departmental shop labor cost, 53,943 tons, at $7.5228 a ton__ $405, 802. 40 

Normal general expenses, 53,943 tons, at $6.87 a ton- 370, 588. 41 

Special equipment- 52, 488. 94 

General expenses, purchasing castings- 14, 658. 56 

Increased general expense, due to loss of output in shop 1, 53,943 

tons, at 69 cents a ton- 37, 220. 67 

Increased cost caused by breakdowns in powerhouse, 53,943 tons, 

at 30 cents a ton- 16,182. 90 


Total_ 896,941.88 

The actual cost of fabricating the lock-gate material was as follows: 

Departmental shop labor cost--— $474,161. 54 

General expenses and administrative expenses, including special 
equipment_ 190, 478. 82 


Total_ 964, 640. 36 













192 


McCLIN TIC-MARSHALL ‘CONSTRUCTION CO. 


Deduct from this ($964,640.36) what it should have cost as shown 
above ($896,941.88) and it leaves a difference of $67,698.48. In the 
opinion of the committee the evidence shows that 90 per cent of 
this difference was due to the Contractor being required to fabricate 
this material “ under requirements as to character and finish not 
fairly within the meaning of the specifications.'’ The remaining 
10 per cent excess cost over what is considered a fair normal appears 
to have been due to the inexperience of the Contractor in fabricating 
such portions of the work as might be classed as shop work. 

Sixty-seven thousand six hundred and ninety-eight dollars and 
forty-eight cents reduced by 10 per cent leaves $60,928.64. This 
sum will be further increased by allowances on specific claims here- 
a fter to be made. 

There are certain other items under claim 2 that do not appear to 
be fairly covered by the allowance made for increased shop cost 
under item 2 of the claim in the way in which that claim has been 
disposed of above. 

Claim C-4, Appendix, page 27 of the printed claim: This claim 
appears to have been the subject of a supplemental agreement under 
date of June 15, 1911. In that agreement it was provided: 

For the purpose of affording access to the end compartments in air chambers 
of lock gates it has been found necessary to substitute 11 by 15 inch manholes 
for the 10-inch diameter air vent in each end of girder in air chamber, and to 
substitute 11 by 15 inch manhole covers for 10-inch air-vent covers at these 
openings in ends of girders at top of air chamber, and the Contractor hereby 
agreed to make these modifications on the understanding that the individual 
parts as supplied shall be paid for at the same price per pound named in the 
original contract, under Washington order 23444, for the several classes of ma¬ 
terial, subject to the limits of overweight therein set forth; and the Contractor 
agrees to make no claim for reduction in amount to be paid for girders through 
reduction in weight on account of increase in size of holes cut through same 
or for added cost arising from any extra work involved, increase in number of 
rivets to be driven, etc., as a result of this modification, in consideration of the 
concession by the Commission affecting insurance requirements, as set forth 
in article 5. 

The insurance requirements in article 5 were as follows: 

The provisions in article 4 of the original contract of June 21, 1910, which 
require the Contractor to keep each gate, and the fixed parts for same, and all 
materials provided for and used or to be used in construction thereof insured 
against fire from the time of delivery on the Isthmus until such gates and fixed 
parts for same and material have passed the preliminary tests for water-tight¬ 
ness provided for in section 122 of the specifications, have been found to be un¬ 
necessary, and the Commission hereby waives the requirements of insurance on 
said gates and fixed parts and materials after delivery above referred to and for 
the period prior to the date the gates are loaded on the cars at the works upon 
the express condition that the cost of such insurance is to counterbalance and 
offset the changes to be made by the Contractor as set forth in article 4 hereof: 
Provided, That no payment shall be made until such insurance as is required 
herein becomes operative. 

The Contractor insists that the insurance waived in this part of 
the contract was of no value and that, in fact, he was required to 
make the change in the size of the manholes in consideration of the 
waiver of a contract provision that was of no benefit whatever to the 
Isthmian Canal Commission. 

Your committee does not think that this is one of the claims that 
comes within the equitable jurisdiction conferred by the act. The 
act, in the opinion of your Commission, does not give authority to 
relieve against express contract provisions. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 193 

As to that item, therefore, the added expense due to this change 
should be borne by the contractor. 

C-6, Appendix, page 30: Adding bent angles at ends of girders, 
top of air chamber. 

This change was insisted upon by Mr. Hammer to improve the 
work. The estimate is reasonable. The extra work operated to in¬ 
crease the shop cost and has been charged against the Contractor in 
establishing the normal above. 

The amount of this claim as stated is: 

Adding bent angles at ends of girders, top of air chamber; extra cost of shop 
labor, 188, at $8 each. 

As this was a change for the improvement of the work and one 
that was ordered by Mr. Hammer, and the Contractor has not been 
reimbursed for it, it is recommended that the amount, $1,504, be 
allowed. 

C-7, Appendix, pages 30-31: This claim as stated is as follows: 

Countersunk rivets .—Extra cost of shop and erection. Labor and loss on 
account of material scrapped: Shop, 440,000, at three-fourths of 1 cent, $8,300; 
field, 308,000, at 5 cents each, $15,400. 

The extra cost for these field rivets will be taken care of in the 
consideration of claim 6. 

The shop cost of $3,300 appears to be reasonable. The design did 
not require the countersinking of these rivets; it was considered that 
the countersinking was necessary, and, as it undoubtedly did im¬ 
prove the design, at a cost to the Contractor of $3,300, included in 
the normal cost above established, it is considered that in equity, 
justice, and fairness this sum should be allowed to the Contractor. 

The countersinking of the rivets removed 17 tons of metal, accord¬ 
ing to the estimate of the Contractor (and this is probably reason¬ 
able), on which the Contractor under the original design would, after 
allowing for scrap, have received $59 per ton, or $1,003. The Con¬ 
tractor should, therefore, be allowed this sum to cover this change. 
(See p. 8, Pendergrass’s letter of Apr. 30, 1915, vol. 27 of evidence, 
ranking data.) 

C-8, Appendix, page 31: This is a claim for extra compensation on 
account of being required to make the bounding angle for the water¬ 
tight frame in a different way from the way in which it was designed. 
Mr. Pendergrass states this claim in his estimate prepared April 30, 
1915, bound in Exhibit 27, as follows: 

Angles in water-tight frames made in one piece instead of four. Extra cost 
of shop labor—2,544 A frames, 96 B frames—2,640 frames, at $3 each, $7,920. 

The work could not be made water-tight under the original design, 
and it had to be changed. (See testimony of Mr. Pendergrass, Gen¬ 
eral Exhibit No. 15, pp. 62, 63, and 64, and statement of Mr. Nutting, 
superintendent of the mechanical division, of Nov. 4, 1915, filed under 
“Miscellaneous data.”) Mr. Nutting states: 

I consider that it would have been entirely impossible to make w T ater-tight 
joints as shown by plan No. 5035. 

To make the joint in the way required under the original design 
was practically an impossibility; and as this design had to be changed 
at great expense to the contractor, it is considered that the extra 
expense should be borne by the Government. 

29249°—H. Doc. 906, 64-1-13 


194 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


Mr. Pendergrass, in his testimony, page 106, volume 15, states that 
his original estimate of $7,920 was too low; that the amount should 
have been placed at $5 each for 2,544 A frames and $12 each for 
96 B frames, making a total extra cost on this item of $13,872. Mr. 
Pendergrass states that he based his final estimate as near the actual 
shop conditions as he could get by consulting the blacksmith as to 
the time necessary to perform various operations. 

Mr. Nutting has made a very careful estimate and concluded that 
the estimate of the Contractor is reasonable, if the angles were actu¬ 
ally made in four pieces and the joints welded. If they were made in 
one piece, Mr. Nutting thinks that $2.50 extra would be ample to 
cover all the expenses, including the substantial overhead for each 
frame of type A and $6 for each frame of type B. The amount 
expended by the Contractor in doing this work was taken into con¬ 
sideration in arriving at a normal cost for the blacksmith shop, 
item 30, page 205 of this report. It seems that the difference between 
the estimate made by Mr. Nutting and the estimate made by Mr. 
Pendergrass is as near to the actual cost of this work as can be 
arrived at from the evidence. This would make $10,529. This 
amount should be allowed as a part of claim 2. 

The total allowance recommended under claim 2 is as follows: 


Expense of fabrication in excess of normal_$60, 928. 64 

Extra under claim C, Appendix, page 30; adding bent angles at ends 

of girder at top of air chamber_ 1, 504. 00 

C-7, Appendix, pages 30 and 31; extra cost account of countersink¬ 
ing 440,000 rivets- 3, 300. 00 

Material lost due to this countersinking_ 1, 003. 00 

C-8, Appendix, page 31; extra cost of shop labor making bounding 

angles different from original design_ 10, 529. 00 


77, 264. 64 

The above allowance is recommended on the basis of a total depart¬ 
mental shop labor cost and general expense for fabricating the lock- 
gate material of $16.46 a ton, for which it is believed that the Con¬ 
tractor is responsible, independently of any excessive demands made 
upon him by the inspectors or being required to fabricate the work 
“ under requirements as to character and finish not fairly within the 
specifications.” 

As heretofore shown, the total average cost of fabricating all mate¬ 
rial passing through shop 2 for the year preceding and the year 
succeeding the lock-gate period was $12.03 per ton. The changes 
provided for in the agreement of August 8, 1910, and other changes 
add $1.80 a ton to the cost of fabricating the material. The pur¬ 
chase of special equipment and general expenses of castings add $1.24 
a ton. The loss of output in shop 1 affected the fabrication of the 
material passing through shop 2 to the extent of 69 cents a ton. The 
breakdowns in power house increased the cost 30 cents a ton. These 
udded together would show $16.06. This would show an excess cost 
of 40 cents a ton, under the original specifications, over all material 
passing through shop 2 for the year preceding and the year succeed¬ 
ing the lock-gate period, due to the inherent character of the lock- 
gate material. 

The original estimate of the Contractor for fabricating this ma¬ 
terial, including sand blasting, pickling, and painting, was $9.60 a 
ton, which, in view of the average price of fabricating all other 
material for the year preceding and the year succeeding the lock-gate 








McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


195 


material seems to have been excessively low. If we add to this esti¬ 
mate the $1.24 for special equipment and general expenses in pur¬ 
chasing the castings it would make a total of $10.84, which would still 
seem to be very low. 

The average cost per ton for fabricating all material, other than 
lock-gate material, passing through shops 1 and 2 for the period 
from December, 1909, to January, 1914, inclusive, was $13.45 a ton. 
(See p. 23 of this report.) If we add $1.24 a ton to this to cover the 
cost of special equipment and general expenses of castings; 69 cents 
a ton for general expenses due to loss of output in shop 1; and 30 
cents a ton due to breakdowns in power house (shop 2), the cost per 
ton of the lock-gate material would be $15.68. This would show a 
difference between the actual cost and this estimate of $2.21. The 
$1.43 allowed for excessive demands by inspectors taken from this 
would leave 78 cents as the increased cost per ton of fabricating the 
lock-gate material, when compared with all material going through 
shops 1 and 2, other than lock-gate material, from December, 1909, 
to January, 1914, inclusive, due to the inherent character of such 
material. 

Under the original bid the departmental shop labor cost and gen¬ 
eral expenses for fabricating the material under item 1 would have 
cost $513,426. This was increased by changes amounting to $97,339 
(see list attached to this report marked “Appendix B ”), making the 
total for item 1 under the original bid, with the increases, $610,765. 
The total cost under item 1 was $906,707. The difference between the 
actual cost and the estimated cost, after making allowances for the 
changes, was $295,942. This would represent the total loss to the 
Contractor under item 1. assuming that he has received, or will re¬ 
ceive, in this settlement sufficient consideration for the changes made. 

In his original bid the Contractor allowed 10 cents per hundred for 
planing the ends. This would have amounted to $106,963.90. It is 
claimed by the Contractor that the principal consideration moving to 
him for the large increase in cost due to the changes made by the 
agreement of August 8, 1910, was to have this end planing waived. 
If the end planing was waived, as is claimed by the Contractor, this 
arrangement operated as a consideration to the Contractor in shop- 
work to the extent of $106,963, assuming that the end planing could 
have been done for the estimate. If we deduct $106,963 from $295,942 
there would be remaining, as a loss to the Contractor, $188,979. If 
the Contractor has not had the consideration moving to him for 
waiving the end planing in the field, it will be allowed to him under 
claim 6, Erection, page 67 of the claim. 

In accounting for the shop loss on the basis of the original bid it 
must not be forgotten that the interior connections were jigged in 
the shop, at a shop expense of $74,776. (See par. 32 of the Goldmark 
agreement of Aug. 8, 1910; B-l of the claim of the Contractor. Ap¬ 
pendix, pp. 7 and 8: and the estimate of Mr. Pendergrass of Apr. 30. 
1915, as to the cost of changes.) Also, the holes were punched small 
in the shop that should have been drilled in the field, at the shop cost 
of $1,200. (See B-2, p. 9 of the claim, and estimate of Pendergrass 
of Apr. 30, 1915.) 

These two operation added $75,966 to the shop cost by transferring 
work that the Contractor would have been required to do in the field 
to the shop, and the shop loss under the original bid should be re- 


196 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


duced by this amount, for the reason that it may be assumed that the 
Contractor received consideration and benefit in the field erection 
to this extent and that he was required to do this extra shopwork 
for this reduction of work in the field. If this had been taken care 
of in the original bid it would have operated to increase the original 
bid by the sum stated, and in accounting for the loss under the origi¬ 
nal bid it should be deducted from the amount of the apparent loss. 

Seventy-five thousand nine hundred and sixty-six dollars deducted 
from the $188,979, apparent loss to the Contractor in the shop work, 
would leave $113,013. If we take the allowance recommended under 
this claim from the loss shown above under the original bid, it would 
leave $35,748.36, which may be properly classed as a loss due to the 
low bid of the Contractor, independently of any changes or an} 7 ex¬ 
cessive requirements made of him under the original contract or 
under the supplemental agreement. 

The original estimate of the Contractor for fabricating the ma¬ 
terial in the shop and on which the Contractor based his bid was too 
low. The estimate on which the Contractor based his bid for erec¬ 
tion, even after the transfer of $75,966 field work to the shop, was 
entirely too low. It is the opinion of your committee that the esti¬ 
mate of Mr. Pittman as to the normal shop-labor cost of a 77-foot 
leaf was too low. There seems to have been a tendency on the part 
of the Contractor to underestimate in connection with the work of 
fabricating and erecting the lock-gate material. The explanation of 
this tendency on the part of the Contractor is found in the difference 
between the character of work to be done in fabricating and erect¬ 
ing the lock-gate material and the work that is usually and ordinarily 
done in the shops of the Contractor. 

A considerable proportion of the loss suffered in connection with 
this work was undoubtedly due to errors in estimating the cost of 
the necessary operations to be performed in connection with the 
fabrication and erection of the work. The estimators probably fol¬ 
lowed too closely the usual practice in estimating for bridge and 
structural work, without making sufficient allowance for the differ¬ 
ence in character between the lock-gate work and other work usually 
fabricated in the shop and erected by the Contractor. 

It is also evident that more material was rejected under this con¬ 
tract than is usually rejected under other contracts, and rightly so, 
for the reason that it was pickled or sandblasted, and these operations 
were unusual in the shop where the material was fabricated. They 
would tend to, and doubtless did, develop defects in the material 
that otherwise would not have been noticed. 

It also seems to be reasonably certain that the close and detailed in¬ 
spection to which this material was rightly subjected developed de¬ 
fects in workmanship and material that would not have been de¬ 
tected in other material not subjected to so close and detailed in¬ 
spection, and unless the right of the Commission is to be denied to 
make such close and detailed inspection and require such reasonable 
corrections as are necessary to secure first-class workmanship, regard¬ 
less of what has been the usual commercial practice, some of the in¬ 
creased expense was undoubtedly due to rejections resulting from the 
discovery of defects that would have otherwise passed unnoticed. 
This last feature will be brought out more in detail in connection 
with the consideration of the claim for the value of rejected material. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


197 


The increased expense due to changes and interference by inspectors 
in requiring the work to be done “as to character and finish not 
fairly within the meaning of the specifications ” undoubtedly caused 
delay in the shop; in fact, the only reasonable way to ascertain the 
increased expense is by fixing a value on the delay and interference. 

The final normal cost on which the settlement is based, and with 
which the Contractor should be charged, is $16.43 per ton. At $16.43 
per ton the Contractor could have fabricated with $77,264.64, 4,702 
tons of material. If this should have been added to the tonnage of 
shop 2 during the lock-gate period, it would have made a tonnage for 
shop 2 of 72,647 tons. This divided by 26 would have given a monthly 
tonnage of 2,794. If we should divide 4,702 tons by 2,794 it would 
give 1.69 months as the time the Contractor was delayed. One and 
sixty-nine hundredths months would be equal to 50 days, and it seems 
that the delay in the shop due to this cause was equivalent to 50 days. 

Whether any allowance is to be made for loss of profits on 4,702 
tons of material will be considered under claim 5. 

To what extent the work of erection was affected by the delay in 
the shop, as shown above, will be considered under claim 6. 

CLAIM 3, PAGE 60, HOOK OF CLAIMS. 

Material rejected or put in stock on account of unreasonable in¬ 
spection, $46,735. 

Under the original claim this amount was made up as follows: 


600,000 pounds, at $2.75 a hundred_$16,500 

Excess rivets cut out, $1,561,000 rivets, or 1,190,000 pounds, at $2.45 

a hundred_ 29,155 

Bolt material put in stock, 90 tons, at $12 a ton_ 1, 080 


Making a total of_ 46, 735 

In the revised claim the amount is made up as follows: 

600,000 pounds, at $2.75 a hundred_$16, 500 

Excess rivets cut out, 1,458,000 rivets, or 1,267,000 pounds, at $2.45 

a hundred_ 31, 091 

Bolt material put in stock, 90 tons, at $12 a ton_ 1, 080 


Total_ 48, 621 


The increase in the rivets claimed is due to a change in the weight 
of the rivets cut out. In the original claim the weight of each rivet 
cut out was computed by the contractor at 0.76233 pound, which 
weight was arrived at by dividing 1,190,000 by 1,561,000. The weight 
of the rivets in the revised claim is taken as the average weight of 
the rivets paid for, which is 0.86898 pound per rivet. 

In the orderly consideration of this claim the first proposition to 
be established is the amount of material that was rejected. 

In a statement prepared by the contractor and submitted to B. F. 
Harrah, a member of the Commission, June 17, 1915, and introduced 
in evidence June 30, 1915 (General Exhibit No. 18; Exhibit to Mr. 
Price’s testimony No. 8), the contractor summarizes the material that 
was rejected as follows: 


Pounds. 

Scrapped due to unreasonable inspection_ 638. 887 

Scrapped for miscellaneous reasons- 286, 990 

Put in stock_ 1,138. 486 


Total_ 2, 064, 363 

















198 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


Mr. Price made an examination of the shop books of the Isthmian 
Canal Commission and undertook to locate the rejections of the mate¬ 
rial made by the Isthmian Canal Commission’s inspectors, where a 
record had been kept of such rejections, and made a list of such 
material, giving the dates of rejections and, where possible, a refer¬ 
ence to the letters containing the reasons for the rejections. (See 
volume 18 of the testimony, Exhibit No. 8, for the list.) 

From this list it appears that 917,880 pounds of material was 
rejected at the pickling plant on account of surface defects. It is 
understood that this material was replaced by the mills, and the con¬ 
tractor has no objections to the rejections. It also appears from this 
list that 447,349 pounds of material was rejected for rust pitting, 
surface defects, and shop errors. 

Material was rejected for rust pitting, as follows: 

Rejection of material at pickling plant after being subjected to the 
acid bath to remove the mill scale: 


Estimated weights. 

Aug. 21, 1912: rounds. 

7 sheathing plates_ 17, 720 

2 sheathing plates_ 4, 500 

13 bent plates_ 7. 450 

32 wedges_ 8. 670 

1 web plate_ 610 

Sept. 11, 1912: 

4 sheathing plates_ 5,180 

1 web plate_ 360 

36 wedges_ 9. 950 

159 frame angles_ 3, 430 

Oct. 7, 1912: 

7 fillers- - 105 

3 foot-walk angles_ 200 


Total_56,175 


been finished or partially finished as follows: 

July 12, 1912. Contract 4865, rejection of 1 bent plate BP17L, owing 

to deep rust pits on each side_1,600 

July 18, 1912. Contract 4855, rejection of 1 bent plate BP17R on account 
of rust scales and rust pits. Sand blasting did not much improve 

its condition_/_1, 600 

July 19, 1912. Contract 4855, rejection of 2 spliceplates owing to rust 
pits: 

5—S24—124 pounds X 5_620 

8—S24A—124 pounds X 8_992 

- 1,612 

July 30, 1912. Contract 4855, rejection of footwalk, tillers, and splice 
plates, owing to rust pits, 25 pieces, minor parts: 

Pounds. 

9 FW 28_165 

2 FW 16_ 460 

2 FN 3_ 35 

2 FN 5_ 31 

2 FN 11_ 32 

6 FN 13_ 25 

1 S 10_ 110 

1 SP 58_ 115 

- 1,100 

Aug. 12, 1912. Rejection of 1 bent plate, BP 23, owing to rust pits_ 2,800 



























McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


199 


A\ig. 16, 1912. Rejection of 4 wedges for rust pits: 

Pounds. 

6 UW-3 UW 25_375 

5 DW-1 UW 26_120 

- 495 

Aug. 16, 1912. Rejection of 90 bent plates, BP, owing to rust pits; all 
of these were sand blasted and examined carefully. Number and 

length of bent plates are correct—width 32 inches, gauge f inch_ 65,055 

Aug. 20, 1912. Rejection of 2 doubling plates, owing to rust pits: 

Pounds. 

DP 52 R_2,700 

DP 2 R_3,275 

_ 5 975 

Aug. 24, 1912. Rejection of 5 footwalk brackets, owing to rust pits: ' 

Pounds. 

1 PW 19_155 

2 FW 21_ 95 

2 FW 21A_ 95 

-635 

Sept. 18, 1912. Rejection of chord angles: Pounds. 

2 6 by 31 by * inch by 50 feet_1, 530 

1 6 by 31 by & inches by 50 feet_ 675 

- 2,205 

Owing to corrosion and rust pits. Angles as sent from mill. 

Note: This length (50 feet) is assumed. 

Feb. 8, 1912. Contract 4873. rejection of bent plate, BP 24 R, owing 


to rust pits_ 580 

Total___ 83,657 


The subject of rust pitting is considered on pages 170 to 174 of 
this report, inclusive. The allowance of the amount of material con¬ 
tained in the bent plates is recommended for the reason that it is 
not considered that the evidence shows that the bent plates were 
rusted to such an extent as would injure them when not exposed, 
after they were placed in the work. Seventy-nine thousand and 
eight-five pounds will be allowed for 107 bent plates. 

The 32 wedges rejected under date of August 23, 1912, 8,670 
pounds, and the 36 wedges rejected under date of September 11, 1912, 
9,950 pounds, should be paid for, as the testimony indicates that these 
wedges were usually planed in the field, and if this is the case the 
rust and surface defects would have been removed. 

The rejection of the splice plates, 1,612 pounds, under date of July 
19, 1912, is approved, for the reason that these splice plates are 
liable to be in an exposed position. 

The amount of material, 1,100 pounds, rejected July 30, 1912, foot 
walls, fillers, etc., should be paid for. 

The rejection of 11 wedges for rust pitting, 495 pounds, under 
date of August 16, 1912, does not appear to have been justified, and 
the weight of this material should be paid for. 

The rejection of the doubling plates, 5,975 pounds, under date of 
August 20, 1912, is approved for the reason that these plates would 
be in an exposed position. 

The material rejected August 24, 1912, footwalk brackets, 635 
pounds, should be paid for. 

The rejection of the chord angles under date of September 18, 
1912, 2,205 pounds, is approved, for the reason that there is no evi¬ 
dence, or not sufficient evidence at least, to show that the inspectors 
were not justified in requiring these angles to be cut off. 























200 McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 

The rejection of all sheathing plates, frame angles, and web plates 
is approved, for the reason that such material would be in a more 
or less exposed position after it is placed in the work. 

The 305 pounds of material rejected October 7, 1912, should be 
paid for. 

The total amount of material that should be paid for that was re¬ 
jected on account of rust pitting is 100,240 pounds. 

The Contractor agrees that the material listed below should have 
been rejected: 

Estimated weight. 

Pounds. 

May 12, 1911. Contract 4585, girder G5R, serial 48; all parts rejected 
except contra web and minor parts. This girder was rejected by Mr. 

Goldmark when he was in the United States in April, 1911_18, 000 

Nov. 7, 1911. Contract 4857, rejection of bent plate BP26R owing to im¬ 
perfect joint and mispunched hole—one-fourth inch out of position_ 376 

Jan. 9, 1912. Contract 4859, rejection of 1 web plate for frame A 8 —three 

thirty-seconds inch scant, 1 foot at top not milled_ 570 

Jan. 10. 1912. Contract 4859, rejection of 1 sheathing plate DM4^. Error 

in laying out or milling. Ail holes seven-sixteenths inch out of center_ 3, 400 
Jan. 15, 1912. Contract 4S59, rejection of 1 sheathing plate, UM25, cham¬ 
fered on opposite end to that required____ 2 , 800 

Jan. 22, 1912. Contract 4859, rejection of 1 sheathing plate, UM36, on 
account of being one-half inch too short at miter end which joins the 

bent plate_ 3, 075 

Feb. 6 , 1912. Contract 5753, rejection of 1 upstream sheathing plate, 

UA5L, on account of error in milling the chamfer to eleven-sixteenths 

inch instead of seven-eighths inch, as required_ 2, 900 

Feb. 8 , 1912. Contract 5753 (replace material), rejection of 1 sheathing 

plate, DA21, milled ta chamfer five thirty-second inch scant_ 4, 000 

Mar. 18, 1912. Contract 4861, rejection of sheathing plate UM35R 

owing to bad flaw or sliver in one end. Drilled and planed_ 2, 450 

Apr. 27, 1912. Contract 4861, rejection of 1 reinforcing plate miter 
end of girder G9L, serial 21. Although 36 holes welie mispunched in 

the plate it was riveted in place_ 720 

Apr. 27, 1912. Contract 4855, rejection of web plate at miter end girder 

G1 owing to bad snake or lap. Plate drilled, but not assembled_ 52 

May 3, 1912. Contract 4855, rejection of 1 sheathing plate, DM42; re¬ 
ceived from mill one-half inch short of length required_ 3,200 

May 9, 1912. Contract 4855-4863, rejection of 2 sheathing plates— 

1-DM42, owing to being three-fourths inch too short; not discovered 

until after punching_ 3 , 200 

1-UMS, owing to being 4| inches too short of required length. Mill 

error detected in storage yard before being sent to shop—4863_ 3 , 500 

May 31, 1912. Contract 4861, rejection of 1 bent plate, BP15, owing to the 

joint being broken with milling tool_ 810 

May 31, 1912. Contract 4855, rejection of 1 web plate of frame A3; 1 
web three-fourths inch used in place of seven-eighths inch where there 

were required 2 seven-eighths inch plates_ 490 

June 19, 1912. Contract 4861, rejection of 1 bent plate, BP27, owing to 

being scant in width three-sixteenths inch on outstanding wing_ 1 , 800 

June 20, 1912. Rejection of 1 bent plate, BP15R, owing to being too short 

to true up at milled end_ _ _ 1 _ g !0 

June 26, 1912. Rejection of 1 upstream chord angle 8 by 8 by f inch, 

broke during binding_^ 2 , 610 

Aug. 1, 1912. Contract 4865, rejection of 1 sheathing plate, DM32L, 
owing to being seven-sixteenths inch scant of required length ; prac¬ 
tically all holes punched_ _ 4 499 

Aug. 2, 1912. Contract 4863, rejection of chord angle, girder G3, 8 by 8 

by £ inch; broke while being sheared to length__ 2,610 

Aug. 6 , 1912. Contract 4863, rejection of 1 doubling plate, DP18L, on 

account of piping detected before punching_ 1 800 

Oct. 10, 1912. Rejection of 1 upstream chord angle, 8 by 8 by f inch, 
owing to fracture; angle broke during binding process in bulldozer.^ 2 , 610 























McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


201 


Pounds. 


Dec. 3, 1912. Contract 4867, rejection of 2 upstream chord angles which 
broke after being riveted in place; girder G11R, serial 11, girder 

G11L, serial 15, 8 by 8 by £ inch_ 5, 220 

Jan. 2, 1913. Contract 4873, rejection of 2 upstream chord angles for 
girder G18, serial 21, 8 by 8 by £ inch, broke while being assembled— 5, 220 
Jan. 13, 1913. Contract 4873, rejection of 2 upstream chord angles for 

girder G18, serial 21, 8 by 8 by £ inch, broke during assembling_ 5, 220 

Jan. 16, 1913. Contract 4873, rejection of 1 upstream chord angle for 

girder G9AL, serial 28, 8 by 8 by £ inch ; angle broke after assembling_2,610 

Jan. 18, 1913. Contract 4873, rejection of 1 upstream chord angle for 
girder G18, serial 23, 8 by 8 by £ inch; angle broke after assembling- 2, 610 
Jan. 27, 1913. Contract 4873, rejection of 1 upstream chord angle for 
girder G16L, serial 35, 8 by 8 by £ inch; angle broke during assem¬ 
bling- 2,610 

Jan. 28, 1913. Contract 4873, rejection of 1 upstream chord angle for 
girder G12AL, serial 38, 8 by 8 by £ inch ; angle broke after assem¬ 
bling-.— - 2, 610 

Jan. 28, 1913. Rejection of 1 upstream chord angle for girder G3L, 
serial 37, 8 by 8 by £ inch ; angle broke during assembling_ 2, 610 


Total- 94, 893 


The general provisions in the specifications relative to quality of 
material and inspection, so far as applicable, are as follows: 

54. All material shall be of uniform quality throughout the mass of each 
object and free from all defects. 

It shall be inspected and tested at the place of manufacture by inspectors 
in the employ of the Commission and passed by them subject to restrictions 
hereinafter mentioned. 

57. Each object made from accepted material shall be clearly and indelibly 
stamped by the inspector, and no material shall be incorporated into*the gates 
or fixed parts unless it bears such stamp, but rivet bars and other small parts 
may be bundled or boxed with stamp on attached metallic tag. 

58. Material may be rejected at any stage of manufacture, fabrication, and 
erection for surface or other injurious defects, either previously existing or 
developed in working, although it bears the above-mentioned stamp, and shall 
be replaced by the contractor at his own cost for material and labor. 

76. A variation of more than 2£ per cent from that specified in the cross 
section or weight of any piece of steel will be sufficient cause for its rejection, 
except in the case of plates over 24 inches wide. These last may be accepted if 
they meet the following requirements which are to apply to single plates: 

The minimum thickness at edges of plates must be not more than 3 per cent 
below the ordered thickness. The weight must not be more than 3 per cent less 
than the nominal weight nor exceed it by more than the percentages given in 
the following table: 




Above 24 
and be¬ 
low 75 
inches. 

Width of plate. 


Thickness of plate. 

75 to 100 
inches. 

Over 100 
inches. 


7 

10 

13 

inch. 

6 

8 

10 


5 

7 

9 

inch. 

H 

4 

6.J 

6 

8* 

8 


Over | inch .. 

H 

5 





78. Plates and shapes must be free from slag, foreign substances, brittleness, 
hardp spots, laminations, sand or scale marks, snakes, pits, and defects gen¬ 
erally. Shapes must also be free from defective sections, shaded backs, grooved 
fillets, imperfect edges, crookedness, etc. 

The material was all inspected at the mills and stamped as required 
under paragraph 57. 

























202 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


Paragraph 58 gave the Isthmian Canal Commission’s inspectors 
authority to reject material at any stage of manufacture, fabrication, 
and erection for surface or other injurious defects, either previously 
existing or developed in working. 

It seems to your committee that, in order to justify the rejection 
of material after it had been accepted at the mill, the defects on which 
the rejection was to be made should be injurious. It is probable that 
this is the view the inspectors of the Isthmian Canal Commission 
undertook to enforce, but it is the opinion of your committee that, 
as to the material listed below, the defects described were not in¬ 
jurious and that the material should have been accepted. The list 
of such material is as follows: 


June 28, 1911. Contract 4851: Pounds. 

1-UM26_2, 875 

1-UC27_ 4, 200 Pounds. 

- 7,075 


Rejected 2 upstream sheathing plates because of being one thirty- 


second inch scant of required gauge. 

Feb. 8, 1912. Contract 4859, rejection of 1 sheathing plate UM6L milled 

at chamfer one-sixteenth inch scant_ 2, 600 

Mar. 15, 1912. Contract 5749 (replace material), rejection of wedge 
DW35L owing to not coming up to our requirements in weight or 

gauge_ 150 

Apr. 9, 1912. Contract 48571, rejection of 2 bent plates BP9 owing to 
using seven-eighths-inch die for three-fourths-inch hole, punch three- 

fourths inch_ 1, 040 

Apr. 13, 1912. Contract 4861, rejection of 1 sheathing plate DM42L owing 
to excess in weight and gauge: Scale 3340, 0.510K ; max., 3289, 565; 

correct/ 0.500_ 3, 200 

May 2, 1912. Rejection of 6 wedges: 

Pounds. 


1-DW21R_145 

4-UW41R_540 

1-UW41L_ 135 

- 820 


Gauge eleven-sixteenths inch instead of three-fourths inch, as 
required. Wedges will not true up. 

June 10, 1912. Contract 4861, rejection of 5-foot walk angles FW3 R L 
owing to holes for bracket being countersunk on inside of vertical leg 

of angle---_ 3,450 

June 17, 1912. Contract 4865, rejection of 1 sheathing plate DA44 owing 

to being chamfered below the limit allowed, one thirty-seconds inch_3, 800 

June 20, 1912. Rejection of 1 footwalk bracket FW7 owing to 8 holes, 

which take the bracket connections, being countersunk_ 926 

July 18, 1912. Contract 4863, rejection of end web plate of girder G6 
owing to being scant in width three-eighths inch—checked before 

being drilled_ 4, 170 

Dec. 3, 1912. Contract 4873, rejection of 2 sheathing plates DA5-A, error 

in punching group of 5 holes; should be blank_ 6, 850 

Jan. 2, 1913. Contract 4873, rejection of 2 sheathing plates UM33 owing 
to error in punching 16 holes, which were not required, in each plate; 
holes were screw plugged before calling inspector’s attention to error. 7, 500 
Feb. 6, 1911. Contract 4845, rejected by G. F. Guynn: 

Pounds. 


1 plate I>M17R owing to 4 plugged holes_3,300 

1 plate DM17R owing to 8 plugged holes_3, 300 

- 6,600 


Total-48,181 

Allowance should be made for the material listed above. 






















McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 203 

On May 17, 1911, material was rejected, as follows: 

Contract 4847: Pounds. 

Girder G 19, serial 65, rejected 2 reinforcing plates at quoin end 

owing to a number of oblong holes_1, 430 

Girder G 12 L, reinforcing plates at quoin end_4, 900 


Contract 4845, girder G 20, serial 45, rejected 2 reinforcing plates at 

quoin end, owing to a number of oblong holes_1, 430 


7. 760 

(See list of material rejected, vol. 18 of the testimony, Exhibit 
No. 8, p. 3.) 

The following letters from Mr. Price to Mr. Hammer give the 
reasons for rejection of this material: 


[Letter No. 1.] 

Referring to girder G 20, serial 45, shop order 4845,1 have rejected 2 reinforc¬ 
ing plates at quoin end of girder, owing to a number of oblong holes in frame A 
connections, also 2 small tiller plates, which are riveted on center web for non- 
watertight connections. 

[Letter No. 2.] 

Referring to girder G 19, serial 65, shop order 4847, I have rejected 2 rein¬ 
forcing plates at quoin end of girder, owing to a number of oblong holes in 
frame A connections. These are to be replaced and properly drilled. 

Referring to girder 12 L, serial 75, shop order 4847, I have rejected the end 
web plate and 2 reinforcing plates at quoin end of girder, owing to a number 
of oblong holes in frame A connections. 

These letters do not give the number of oblong holes or the extent 
to which the holes were oblong. 

Mr. Price, who made the rejections, was working to very close 
limitations, as has been heretofore shown, and it is probable that in 
this particular he was more severe than was'justified by the usual 
practice in connection with such work. (See testimony of Mr. John 
Ostrom heretofore quoted in connection with the accuracy which was 
being required in the work; see also testimony of Mr. T. B. Monniche, 
vol. 37, pp. 14, 15, and 1G.) 

It is the opinion of your committee that the rejection was not au¬ 
thorized. and allowance should be made for the amount of material 
involved. 

The following material was rejected for surface defects: 

Dec. 11, 1911. Contract 4857, rejection of. center web of girder G 2, sur¬ 
face defects; assembled but not riveted-4,140 

The statement of this rejection shown above contains all of the in¬ 
formation that is found in Mr. Price’s letter to Mr. Hammer, making 
report. 

In a letter from Mr. Price to Mr. Hammer, dated December 6,1911, 
found in Appendix to his report, page 40, he states: 

In connection with the pickling plant, I must call your attention to the length 
of time material is allowed to remain exposed to the weather after being pickled. 
The output of the pickling plant is evidently much in excess of the output of the 
shop at present, and especially so as regards plates. One or more piles of plates 
have remained in the yard exposed to the weather since being pickled for about 
six weeks, and several piles have remained there for two, three, and four weeks. 










204 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


On December 12, 1911, after the rejection of the above web plates 
(in a letter to Mr. Hammer found in Appendix to Mr. Price’s report, 
p. 41), Mr. Price states that: 

I wish to call your attention to conditions as to rusting of material after being 
pickled, and also to conditions of certain finished members, material for which 
has been pickled before fabrication. 

The material remains in the pickling yard for several days, and in many cases 
for several weeks exposed to the weather after being pickled, and after fabri¬ 
cation the finished members remain in the shipping yard in many cases for 
several weeks exposed to the weather before painting. 

From these letters it is quite probable that the rejection of this 
material was made by Mr. Price on account of its rusty and probably 
pitted condition, although he does not so state. 

In the absence of any evidence to show that the contractor objected 
to this rejection at the time it was made, and of any evidence to show 
. the exact condition of this material at the time it was rejected, it 
will be presumed that the action of the inspector in making the re¬ 
jection was authorized. 

Jan. 18, 1912. Contract 4857, rejection of 1 end web plate, girder 
G 17, owing to surface defects; plate was punched but not assem¬ 
bled_pounds_3, 468 

Mr. Price, in his letter of January 18, 1912, reporting this rejection 
to Mr. Hammer, states: 

Referring to end web or sketch plate, five-eighths inch thick, for girder G 17, 
contract 48571, which was rejected owing to surface defects: 

“ Information as to heat number was requested by Mr. Barr, of Jones & 
Laughlin. The heat number stamped in this plate is 11133. This plate was 
punched but not assembled.” 

It is probable, from this letter, that the surface defects for which 
this plate was rejected was one existing in the plate at the time that 
it came from Jones & Laughlin. This would seem to be indicated 
from the request of Mr. Barr, of Jones & Laughlin, for the heat 
number of the plate. 

In the absence of any evidence that the contractor objected to this 
rejection at the time it was made, or any evidence to show that the 
defect was not an injurious one, it will be presumed that the judg¬ 
ment of the inspector in rejecting it was based upon the fact that 
the surface defect was an injurious one, and the rejection is approved. 

May 27, 1912. Rejection of 1 bent plate, owing to surface defects, detected 
before being subjected to acid bath at pickling plant (see CWrode’s 
pickling-plant book)-pounds__ 340 

In a letter of Mr. Price to Mr. Hammer, dated May 27, 1912, he 
states the reasons for this rejection as follows: 

I wish to advise you that one bent plate was rejected at the pickling plant 
owing to surface defects. The defects were detected by Inspector Cofrode before 
* the plate was subjected to tlie pickling process. Inspector’s stamp No. 115. 
Carnegie heat No. 27616. 

It is believed that the action of the inspector in rejecting this mate¬ 
rial was justified in the absence of any testimony as to the specific 
causes of rejection or any objections on the part of the Contractor to 
the rejection at the time it was made. 

May 31, 1912. Contract 4855, rejection of 1 splice plate, S 54, owing to sur¬ 
face defects_pounds_90 







McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 205 

Under date of June 7, 191*2, in Mr. Price’s report to Mr. Hammer, 
he states his reasons for this rejection as follows: 

I wish to submit the following report from Mr. Hurlston regarding splice 
plate S 54 A: 

“ I have rejected one splice plate marked S 54 A, 19J by § inch by 2 feet 
2£ inches, contract 4855, for having bad surface, being badly pitted with 
cinders.” 

It is the opinion of your committee that the material should have 
been rejected. 

June 20, 1912. Contract 4863, rejection of 1 sheathing plate UC 25 owing 

to surface defects_pounds._ 4, 500 

In a letter dated June 20, 1912, from Mr. Price to Mr. Hammer, he 
states the reason for this rejection as follows: 

I wish to call your attention to conditions of surface defects of one upstream 
sheathing plate UC 25, contract 4863, as reported by Mr. Hurlston: 

“ I have held up for your approval or rejection sheathing plate US 25, 
contract 4863, for having a flaw or scab in end of plate, as per sample.” 

The flaw or piping referred to by Mr. Hurlston is at the end of plate at the 
center joint. Its dimensions are 3 inches wide by 6 inches long by a full one- 
eighth inch deep. 

The plate is drilled, machined, and finished. 

I consider this defect sufficient cause for rejection, and have therefore re¬ 
jected the plate. 

It is not believed to be probable by your committee that the defect 
as described was so injurious as to justify a rejection of the material 
after it was fabricated. An allowance for the value of this material 
should be made. 

Aug. 20, 1912. One doubling plate, DP 26, rejected owing to surface de¬ 
fects _pounds— 2, 300 

In a letter of August 20, 1912, to Mr. Hammer, Mr. Price states the 
cause of this rejection as folloivs: 

One DP 26 rejected on account of mill surface defects. 

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary or any objections 
on the part of the Contractor to the rejection at the time it was 
made, it will be presumed that the surface defects were such as to 
injure the material, and also that the material was probably replaced 
by the mill without cost to the Contractor. No allowance should 
therefore be made on this item. 

Oct. 12, 1912. Contract 4867, rejection of 1 end web plate for girder G 19, 

awing to surface defects; detected before punching-pounds— 2, 800 

In a letter to Mr. Hammer, dated October 12, 1912, Mr. Price 
states his reason for this rejection as follows: 

I wish to advise you that I have rejected one end web plate for girder G 19, 
contract 4867, owing to surface defects which were detected when the plate was 
laid off but before being punched. 

No work was done on this plate, except laying off, and it is prob¬ 
able that it was replaced by the Contractor without charge. The 
surface defects were evidently mill defects, and it is presumed, in 
the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that they were sufficiently 
injurious to justify a rejection. 





206 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


Feb. 6, 1911. Contract 4845, rejected by G. F. Guynn: 

Pounds. 


1 plate DM 44, owing to scale on surface_ 2, 600 

1 plate UC 11, owing to drill and hammer marks_ 3, 500 

1 plate UC 11, owing to drill marks___ 3, 500 

1 plate UC 20, owing to scale on surface_ 3, 400 


13, 000 

In a letter from Mr. Geo. F. Guynn to Mr. Hammer, under date of 
February 6, 1911, Exhibit No. 15 of Mr. Neeld’s testimony, he states: 

The following sheathing plates have been rejected account of surface de¬ 
fects : * * * 

One plate DM 44, rejected on account of scabs on surface. 

One U C 11, rejected on account of drill marks, and the surface badly 
marred on account of hammering same. 

One U C 11, rejected on account of drill marks. 

One U C 20, rejected on account of scabs on surface. * * * 

Two plates, D M 17 R, plugged holes, have heretofore been allowed. 

The size and character of the scabs on the surface of the material 
are not stated, but in the absence of any evidence that the Contractor 
objected to the rejection at the time and of any evidence as to the 
character of the scabs, it will be presumed that they were of such 
character as to be injurious to the material. 

In relation to one of the U C 11 plates, rejected on account of drill 
marks, Mr. Guynn states: 

One upstream sheathing plate, mark U C 11, was rejected on account of hav¬ 
ing 49 drill marks, ranging from one-sixteenth inch to one-quarter inch deep and 
from one-eighth inch to three-eighths inch in diameter, due to carelessness in 
drilling. 

The above plate was underneath the plate that was being drilled. 

Another plate, mark U C 11, was rejected on account of drill marks. 
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is believed that the 
drill marks were of such character as to be injurious to the material. 
It is thought by your committee, therefore, that the rejection was 
properly made. 

The material rejected for surface defects, considered in detail on 
pages 225, 226, 227, 228, and 229 above, amount to 31,038 pounds. It 
appears that 26,538 pounds were properly rejected and that there 
should be an allowance for the value of 4,500 pounds rejected on this 
account. 

Material was rejected for piping as follows: 

Jan. 31, 1912. Contract 5749 (replace), rejection of 1 downstream 

sheathing plate, DMIL, on account of piping-pounds— 4^200 

In a letter to Mr. Hammer, dated January 31, 1912, Mr. Price 
states: 

I wish to advise you that I have rejected one downstream sheathing plate 
DMIL; contract 5749, on account of piping. 

This plate is to replace material on contract 4849 which was lost on the 
Moldegaard. 

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed 
that the piping was injurious to the material, and that the rejection 
was properly made. 

Feb. 22, 1912. Contract 4859, rejection of bent plate, finished BP 18 R, on 

account of piping, and also on account of poor workmanship..pounds— 1 , 550 







McCLIN TIC-MARSH ALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


207 


In a letter to Mr. Hammer, dated February 22, 1912, Mr. Price 
states his reason for this rejection as follows: 

I w ish to call your attention to defective material in end plate riveted on 
bent plate BP IS R, contract 4859, and I quote Mr. Hurlston’s report on this sub¬ 
ject. After careful examination of this plate, and finding the piping to be about 
4 inches in width and running to a depth of 5 inches, I rejected the plate. Be¬ 
sides piping in the end plate, the member was carelessly constructed, as noted 
in report mentioned. A steel scale, one-sixteenth inch thick, was moved with 
ease between the end and bent plate its whole length, 12 inches, and an ordi¬ 
nary putty knife was placed between the end and bent plates between the first 
and second rivets, showing the two plates were not in contact. 

I am holding up bent plate, BP 18 R, contract 3859, for your approval or rejec¬ 
tion. The end plate is piped at one end, extending back about 6 inches. There is 
also a space of about one-sixteentli inch between the end plate and the bent 
plate, which extends about 12 inches. 

It is considered by your committee that this rejection was properly 
made. 

Apr. 5, 1912. Contract 4859, rejection of 1 doubling plate, DP 29"L, owing 

to piping; this plate was punched, drilled, and finished_pounds— 3,200 

In a letter from Mr. Price to Mr. Hammer, dated April 5, 1912, he 
states his reason for the rejection of this plate, as follows: 

I wish to inform you that I have rejected one doubling plate, DP 29 L, con¬ 
tract 4859, owing to the plate being badly piped. The piping extends for 3 or 
more feet along the edge of the plate, and is open 6 or more inches back from 
the edge. This plate was punched, planed, and finished, but the piping .not 
discovered until inspected by Mr. King. The plate was not subjected to the 
pickling process. 

I would advise more careful inspection at the mill relating to piping. 

It is considered that this rejection was properly made. 

July 29, 1912. Contract 4865, rejection of sheathing plate, DM 42 L, owing 

to piping. Not detected until plate was planed and punched_pounds— 3, 200 

In a letter from Mr. Price to Mr. Hammer, dated July 29, 1912, he 
states his reason for this rejection, as follows: 

I wish to advise you that I have rejected one downstream sheathing plate, 
DM 42 L, contract 4865, owing to piping. This defect was not detected until 
the plate was planed and punched. 

There are two distinct piping at one corner of the plate which extend several 
inches on end and sides. These defects are considered sufficient cause for 
rejection. 

It is considered that this plate was properly rejected. 

Aug. 7, 1912. Contract 4863, rejection of 1 doubling plate, DP 18 L, owing 
to piping_pounds— 1, 800 

This appears to be covered by a letter from Mr. Price to Mr. Ham¬ 
mer, dated August 6, 1912, which reads as follows: 

I wish to advise you that I have rejected one doubling plate, DP 18 L, contract 
4863, on account of piping, about 3 inches in length on one end of plate. This 
defect was detected after the plate was laid out, but before it was punched. 

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary it must be presumed 
that this defect was injurious to the plate, and that it was properly 
rejected. 

Aug. 22, 1912. Contract 4863, rejection of 1 reinforcing plate girder, G 6 L, 
serial 34, quoin end, owing to piping; not detected until girder was ma¬ 
chined and finished_pounds. _ 816 





208 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


In a letter to Mr. Hammer of August 22, 1912, Mr. Price states: 

I wish to advise you that I have rejected one reinforcing plate on quoin end 
of girder, G6L, serial 34, contract 4863, on account of piping. The girder was 
machined and finished before the piping was detected. 

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary it is presumed that 
this piping was injurious to the material and the rejection was prop¬ 
erly made. 

Sept. 18, 1912. Rejection of 20 end reinforcing plates for girders, owing to 
piping; detected after plates were planed and punched, but before as¬ 
sembling_pounds— 14, 000 

In a letter of Mr. Price of September 18, 1912, he states the reason 
for this rejection, as follows: 

I wish to advise you that I have rejected 20 end reinforcing plates for girders 
on account of piping. This defect was not discovered until after the plates 
were punched and planed. 

In the absence of any evidence to show that the contractor objected 
to this rejection at the time it was made or any evidence to show that 
the piping was not injurious to the material, the judgment of the in¬ 
spector that the exent of the piping was sufficient cause for the re¬ 
jection of the material will be accepted. The material should have 
been rejected. 

The following material was rejected on account of slivers on edge 
of plates: 

Jan. 21, 1911. Contract 4845-47, rejected 1 downstream sheathing plate, 

DA7, on account of sliver on edge of plate_pounds_3, 200 

The only reason appearing in the letter of Mr. Guynn to Mr. Ham¬ 
mer, of January 21, 1911, giving the cause for this rejection, is that 
it was rejected on account of sliver on edge of plate. 

In the absence of any objections to this rejection at the time it was 
made, or of any specific evidence as to the insufficiency as to the 
cause of the rejection stated, it will be presumed that the sliver was 
injurious to the plate, and that it was properly rejected. 

Feb. 6, 1911. Contract 4845, rejected by G. F. .Guynn, 1 plate, DA7, owing 
to sliver on edge of plate_pounds_3, 200 

The reason given by Mr. Guynn for the rejection of this plate, in 
his letter of February 6, 1911, to Mr. Hammer, was on account of 
the sliver on the edge of the plate. Mr. Neeld, who was the manager 
of the Rankin shop at that time, does not have any recollection about 
this rejection. (See testimony of Mr. Neeld, p. 50.) 

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that 
the sliver was of sufficient extent to be injurious to the plate. The 
rejection is, therefore, approved. 

The following rejections were made for miscellaneous reasons, 
principally as to the accuracy of the dimensions of the members: 

Dec. 12, 1911. Contract 4857, 6 fillers: Pounds. 

3-C 158,14 by 5/16 inch by 9 feet 9 5/8 inches, equals 145 pounds by 3 135 

3-D 158,14 by 3/16 inch by 8 feet 7 1/4 inches, equals 77 pounds by 3__ 231 

On December 12, 1911, Mr. Price wrote to Mr. Hammer, giving 
his reasons for the rejection of these filler plates, which letter reads 
as follows: 

I wish to report that I have rejected the following filler plates on account 
of being scant in width, contract 4857, bent plates BP 37 and 38, sheet 158: 






McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


209 


Three fillers 14 5/16 by 5/16 inch by 9 feet 9 5/8 inches, assembly mark C 158; 
three fillers 14 5/16 by 3/16 inch by 8 feet 7 1/4 inches, assembly mark D 158; 
bolted for shipment. 

These plates were rejected on account of being one-fourth inch scant of width 
at bearing edge of plate connecting with sheathing plate. 

It appears that the .filler plates are entirely covered and that they 
have no value in taking stress, being used merely as fillers. The 
small difference between the actual and theoretical width of these 
plates would not constitute, in the opinion of your committee, an 
injurious defect, and the value of the material contained in the re¬ 
jected filler plates should be allowed. 

(See sketch prepared by Mr. Embree in miscellaneous data file.) 

May 3, 1912. Contract 4855, rejection of 1 end sketch web-plate grider 

G1A, scant in dimensions as to length and breadth_pounds— 5,210 

In a letter dated May 3, 1912, to Mr. Hammer, Mr. Price gives his 
reasons for the rejection of this web plate as follows; 

I wish to advise you that one end sketch web plate for girder G1A, contract 
4855, was rejected on account of being scant in dimensions both as to length 
and width. I submit Mr. Harber’s report on this matter: 

“ The following covers one sketch web plate for water-tight girder G1A (re¬ 
jected) on account of being too narrow at intervals, also short for length to 
enable good results. Plate 84 by hi inch by 22 feet 1£ inches. Heat No. 
11360 I. C. C. 20.” 

I consider it well to call the attention of the mill to these discrepancies. 

In a note on the face of the above-quoted letter Mr. Hammer 
states: 

Reject plate and call the mill’s attention to material being received too scant 
in dimensions (length and width). 

These errors in dimensions are considered as good cause for the 
rejection of this plate, and the rejection is approved. 

June 26, 1912. Contract 4861, rejection of 2 bent plates BP15R, evidently 

shipped from the mill too short and appear to have been heated and 

drawn out___pounds_1, 620 

In a letter to Mr. Hammer, dated June 26, 1912, Mr. Price gives 
his reason for this rejection as follows: 

I wish to call your attention to conditions of bent plate B P 15 R, contract 
4861, as reported by Mr. Hurlston: 

“ I have held up in shop two bent plates B P 15 R for your approval. These 
plates were evidently shipped from the mill short, as same would not true up 
in the milling. The plates now appear as if they had been heated and drawn 
out to the following thicknesses: No. IBP 15 R, 635, 630, 598; No. 2 B P 15 R, 
545, 550, 578, 575. These plates should caliper 0.687 or inch.” 

On June 20 I advised you in letter of that date that I had rejected one bent 
plate B P 15 R on account of being too short to true up. This refers to No. 2, 
as reported by Mr. Hurlston. No. 1 was held for later decision. 

The following note was placed on the above letter by Mr. Hammer; 

Price was instructed verbally to reject plate 1 July 1, 1912. 

It is the opinion of your committee that this method of correcting 
defects in the plate without calling the commission’s attention to 
the method proposed, so that its inspectors might witness the process, 
w T as not justified. The rejection also appears to have been proper 
under the circumstances and for the reasons stated. 

29249°—H. Doc. 906, 64-1-14 




210 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO 


Aug. 16, 1912. Rejection of 9 wedges, 2 DW one-eighth inch short: Pounds. 


1 UW 42_ 150 

I UW 44_ 125 

3 DW 8_ 330 

1 DW 25_ 110 

3 DW 32___ 375 


1, 090 

It is not considered that this is sufficient cause for the rejection of 
these wedges, and the amount of material contained in them should 
be paid for. 

Nov. 29, 1912. Contract 4867, rejection of 2 upstream chord angles for 
girder G8, serial 9, owing to error in milling; all holes reamed full size; 
three-sixteenths inch out_pounds_5, 220 

In a letter from Mr. Price to Mr. Hammer, dated November 29, 

1912, Mr. Price states his reason for this rejection as follows: 

I wish to advise you that I have rejected downstream chord angles on girders 
G8, serial 9, contract 4867. These angles were milled too short, the rivets were 
backed out, and the angles moved forward about three-sixteenths inch, making 
the holes through the web of girder three-sixteenths inch out of center, which 
was considered sufficient cause for rejection. 

The fact that all holes in the center web, after being reamed to full 
size, Avere three-sixteenths inch out of center seems to your committee 
to have been sufficient cause for the rejection of the material. This 
rejection is therefore appro A r ed. 

Jan. 16, 1913. Contract 4867, rejection of 4 splice plates S24, owing to 
light gauge, seven-sixteenths inch instead of one-half inch, as re¬ 
quired -pounds_ 100 

In a letter from Mr. Price to Mr. Hammer, dated January 16, 

1913, he states: 

I wish to advise you that 1 have rejected, owing to being one-sixteenth inch 
light in gauge, 4 splice plates S24, contract 4867. These plates are located in 
the seventh panel on downstream side of leaf. The plates gauge seven-six¬ 
teenths inch instead of one-half inch, as called for on drawing. 

Mar. 16, 1911. Contract 4845, several water-tight frames rejected: Pounds. 


Assume 5 at 1,200 pounds each_ 6, 000 

1 sheathing plate (assumed Aveight)___ 3’ 500 

1 nonwater-tight frame Aveb plate (assumed \A T eiglit) _ 530 

1 staple for water-tight frame (assumed Aveight) _ 255 


10, 285 

The records do not sIioav very definitely Avhy the Avater-tight frames 
were rejected. There is a notation in Mr. Wheatcroft’s shop books 
showing that some of the Avater-tight frames cracked at the time they 
were being electrically Avelded. 

In Mr. Guynn’s letter of February 28, 1911, found in volume 6 of 
the testimony, Exhibit 3, he states: 

Twenty-two water-tight frames have been riveted and six assembled for rivet¬ 
ing. The corners and butts of these frames have been Avelded by the electric 
process of welding. The welding looks very unsightly, and the corners and 
butted ends of the material are roughly cut close to the rivet holes, and, in my 
opinion, this method of welding will not give satisfactory results Avhen sub¬ 
jected to a high head of Avater pressure. At the present writing the corners 
are being welded by angle smiths in a workmanlike manner, and I think the 
same will be entirely satisfactory. 

The Avater-tight frames are undoubtedly a part of the material 
that Avas scrapped Avhen the change was made in the bounding angle 
of these frames. (See pp. 63, 64, and 65 of the testimony of Mr. 
Pendergrass, vol. 15, and Exhibit No. 25 in the testimony of Mr. 














McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


211 


Pendergrass.) In this testimony, page 65, it appears that the water¬ 
tight diaphragms made in four parts, either butt calked or electric 
welded, were scrapped. An allowance will be made for this material 
as a separate item to cover the value of the scrapped material, as 
shown in the testimony of Mr. Pendergrass, page 121. 

The sheathing plate, the nonwater-tight frame w T eb plate, and the 
staple angle for water-tight frame do not appear to be sufficiently 
identified from the records to enable your committee to determine 
the specific causes of rejection. The evidence is, therefore, not suffi¬ 
cient to justify your committee in saying that the Isthmian Canal 
Commission’s inspectors were not authorized in the rejection of these 
plates. The rejection of one sheathing plate, one nonwater-tight 
frame web plate, and one staple for water-tight frame is therefore 
approved, and as stated above before an allowance for the amount of 
the estimated weight of the water-tight frames will be made when 
making allowance for the material scrapped in connection with the 
way in which the bounding angle for the water-tight frames was 
finally fabricated. 

Apr. 17, 1911. Contract 4845, 5 sheathing plates rejected. Erection 

marks not designated (assumed weight 3,500 pounds each)__pounds_17,500 

The five sheathing plates are referred to in a report of Mr. Crane 
to Mr. Hammer, dated April 17,1911. The statement is made therein, 
in connection with the rejection, that— 

Five sheathing plates have been rejected since last report of March 31, 1911. 
On April 15, 1911, Mr. Crane stated— 

About crimped plates, both Mr. Hurlston and Mr. Wheatcroft remained until 
about 7.30 inspecting these plates, rejecting 5 of the 16 plates. These 5 plates 
are in the shop, but hope to get them ready by noon for shipment. 

This would seem to indicate that the plates were not absolutely re¬ 
jected, but were merely held up for correction when reported to Mr. 
Hammer. No allowance will therefore be made for what seems to 
have been listed as an absolute rejection, but which, in all probability, 
was nothing more than a rejection of the plates when presented, with 
the understanding that they would be corrected and subsequently sub¬ 
mitted. 

May 1, 1911. Contract 4847, upstream chord angles-pounds— 2, 610 

In a letter of Mr. Crane, dated May 1, 1911, he states— 

The upstream angles of a girder, contract 4847, were rejected. 

Your committee has been unable to find where the records of the 
Isthmian Canal Commission indicate the cause of the rejection of 
these chord angles, neither does the testimony give the reason. 

In the absence of any evidence to explain the cause for the rejec¬ 
tion of these angles, your committee does not feel justified in conclud¬ 
ing that the rejection must have been erroneously made. 

Material was rejected for errors in punching and spacing of holes 
as follows: 

Mar. 13, 1912. Contract 4859, rejection of the upstream chord angles 
girder G 23, serial 51, holes in outstanding leg three-eiglitlis inch out 
of center in many cases-=.-pounds— 2, 630 

In a letter to Mr. Hammer, dated March 13, 1912, Mr. Price states 
the reason for this rejection as follows: 

I wish to report that acting upon your instructions the upstream chord 
angles of girder G 23, serial 51, contract 4859, were rejected; the holes in the 




212 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


outstanding leg to take the sheathing plates being out of center in many cases 
as much as three-eighths inch. These angles have been removed and replaced 
with others which match the holes in the sheathing plates within three thirty- 
seconds inch in the most aggravated case. As reported by Mr. Harber. 

This seems to be sufficient reason for the rejection of this material, 
and requiring the angle to be cut off and replaced. The action of the 
inspector is therefore approved. 

July 19, 1912. Contract 4855, rejection of 2 splice plates, owing to mis- 

punched holes (2—SP 21, 120 by 2)_pounds_240 

In a letter to Mr. Hammer, dated July 19, 1912, Mr. Price states 
that— 

I wish to advise you that I have rejected two splice plates, contract 4855, 
on account of * * * mispunched holes. Two splice plates, SP. 21, re¬ 

jected on account of mispunched holes. 

In view of the evidence showing the extreme accuracy in the punch¬ 
ing of the holes, it is probable that this rejection w as unauthorized. 
The value of the material involved will be paid for. 

Dec. 1, 1910. Contract 4845, girder G 18, serial 14, assembled in shop; 

two upstream chord angles rejected owing to unfair holes_pounds_4,385 

In a letter to Mr. Hammer, dated December 1, 1910, Mr. Guynn 
states— 

The following is a list of material being worked in shop for contract 4845, 
54-foot 8 -incli gates: 

One girder, mark G 13, serial 14, assembled in shop with the exception of the 
upstream chord angles, which have been removed on account of unfair holes. 
New angles will be substituted in the place of the ones removed. 

This was a part of the first work that w T as fabricated, and while 
it may be that too great accuracy was being demanded as to the 
cleaning up of the holes, your committee does not feel warranted in 
holding in the particular instance cited that the evidence is sufficient 
to justify the conclusion that the action of the inspector w as unwar¬ 
ranted and unnecessary to secure first-class w orkmanship. 

The rejection is approved. 

The action is, to some extent at least, supported by the fact that 
subsequently Mr. Goldmark rejected practically all the material in 
one girder, 18,000 pounds, and that this rejection has been concurred 
in by Mr. Wolfel. It has also been found as a fact in this report that 
the fabrication of this w^ork in the beginning was not entirely satis¬ 
factory. 

Apr. 1, 1911. Contract 4845, rejected owing to unfair holes: 

rounds. 


Girder G 13 R, serial 20, u. s. chord angles_ 335 

Girder G 13 L, serial 23, d. s. chord angles_ 2, 170 

Girder G 13 R, serial 81, u. s. chord angles_ 4 ’ 335 

Girder G 14 L, serial 15, d. s. chord angles_ 2, 170 

Girder G 14 R, serial 19, d. s. chord angles_I 2 * 170 

Girder G 14 L, serial 16, u. s. chord angles_ 4 385 


19, 665 

In a report of Mr. Crane to Mr. Hammer, dated March 20. 1911, in 
reference to girder G 13 R, serial 20, above, he states: 

Downstream angle, unfair holes 113. Upstream angle, unfair holes 220. 
Rejected both up and down stream angles. 

Note. —Reinspected 3-24-11. Rejected finally upstream angle (see letter 
3—26—11). 










McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 213 

The letter of March 26,1911, referred to as showing the final action 
on this girder, states: 

Girder 13 R. serial 20, “white” marks: First inspection gave upstream 
angles 220 bad holes; downstream angles 113 bad holes. Tried plate; could not 
fit up with one-half-inch bolts on upstream angles, but downstream angles were 
very good. Rejected upstream angles. 

This seems to your committee to be sufficient cause for the rejection 
of these angles. The punching should at least have been good enough 
to enable the Contractor to bolt up with five-eighth-inch bolts; other¬ 
wise it is probable that in reaming out, so that the holes would clean 
up, too much material would be removed from the angles. (Upon 
this question see the testimony of Mr. Monniche, pp. 13, 14, 15, 16, 
and 17.) 

In the report of Mr. Crane to Mr. Hammer, dated March 24, 1911, 
in relation to girder 13 L, serial 23, he states: 

Downstream angles, unfair holes 161; upstream angles 20. Tried plates; 
116 plus 86 bad holes. Rejected downstream angles. 

Note. —Rejected second inspection also. 

The extent to which the holes were unfair on a trial of the plates is 
not stated. It seems, however, that the number of holes that were 
bad from the trial with the plates is such as to justify the conclusion 
that the punching had not been done with reasonable accuracy. 

Girder 13 R, serial 31, above: 

In a letter dated March 20, 1911, Mr. Crane reports to Mr. Ham¬ 
mer on this girder as follows: 

Downstream, unfair holes -; upstream, unfair holes -. 

Note. —Retried with plate and rejected the second time, G 13 R, 31. 

In a letter dated March 24, 1911, Mr. Crane states, in reporting to 
Mr. Hammer: 

Girder G 13 R, serial 31. Upstream, unfair holes, 97. Reinspected and re¬ 
jected on trial with plate. Upstream angles rejected finally. 

The extent to which the holes were cut is not shown, and of course 
it is simply a question as to rejections of the inspectors as to whether 
or not the holes were sufficiently out on the trial with the plates to 
make it undesirable to accept the angles and attempt to incorporate 
them into the work with corrections in the size of the holes, so as to 
make the proper percentage of them clean up. As the plates were 
actually tried on these angles and the results found to be sufficient to 
justify a rejection, your committee is not in a position to determine 
with certainty that the holes in these angles were not sufficiently bad 
to justify a rejection, although it is probable from the testimony in 
connection with the degree of accuracy that was being required at 
this time that the rejection of the angles, under the circumstances, 
might have been due to unusually close inspection, and possibly to 
unnecessary accuracy. 

It may have been that it was entirely proper to pass the angles 
and put "the work of cleaning up the holes by enlarging them in the 
field upon the Contractor. It is not believed, however, that the facts 
are so clear in this case as to justify payment for the material rejected 
on this account. 




214 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


In relation to girder 14 L, serial 15, Mr. Crane states in a letter to 
Mr. Hammer, dated March 20, 1911, that: 

Downstream angles, unfair holes, 190; upstream angles O. K. Rejected down¬ 
stream angles. 

Note. —Rejection, second inspection. 

In a letter of Mr. Crane to Mr. Hammer, dated March 26, 1911, 
he states: 

Girder G 14 L, serial 15, “ white ” holes, 190 bad on downstream angles. 
Reinspected, tried plate DM-24, which followed white ” marks; only 7 good 
holes. Rejected on second inspection. 

This rejection seems to have been justified on account of careless 
punching. 

In a letter from Mr. Crane to Mr. Hammer, dated March 24, 1913, 
he states: 

Girder G 14 R, serial 19, downstream angles, unfair holes, 156; upstream 
angles, unfair holes, 6. Tried plates. One plate, all bad holes. Rejected down¬ 
stream angles. Rejected on second inspection when plate was tried on. 

In a letter from Mr. Crane to Mr. Hammer, dated March 20, 1911, 
he states: 

Girder 14 L, serial 16. Downstream angles, unfair holes 41; upstream angles, 
118. Rejected upstream angles. 

The facts do not show that these angles were subjected to a second 
inspection by having the plates tried on them. It is probable that 
the angles were taken off without question upon the condition being 
exhibited to the Contractor. 

The amount of material lost on this account should not be paid 
for, unless it is to be concluded that all of the rejections in connec¬ 
tion with the punching of the material were unauthorized, due to 
close and unreasonable requirements as to the accuracy demanded 
in the spacing of the holes. It is not believed that this view is cor¬ 
rect, as the great number of unfair holes found in these angles would 
indicate, at least, that there must have been something wrong with 
the templets or there must have been careless work done on the angles 
above considered, unless it is to be concluded that holes out the very 
least bit were considered unfair. This is a part of the material that 
was fabricated by punching the holes the size called for in the speci¬ 
fications and with the wooden templets. It is also a part of the 
work that is referred to in the letter of Mr. Crane of April 22, 1911, 
found in Mr. Goldmark’s report, page 179. It is also a part of the 
work that was done in the same manner as that referred to in Mr. 
Goldmark’s testimony, pages 32 and 33, in which he states: 

Q. Did you find from personal experience with Mr. Hammer in connection 
with the execution of this contract that he was inclined, where a matter was left 
to his judgment as to what would be first-class workmanship, to make close 
decisions against the contractor?—A. I had little opportunity of observing that 
directly. I was only there once or twice, and I had to agree with him in his 
main contentions. I did ultimately relax the specifications somewhat in pass¬ 
ing some of the material; but I can not say, in the main, things that he could 
very well, as far as I know (I do not know; that is about it), have passed those 
things without question (sic). 

Q. Can you give some specific instance to illustrate the point?—A. Well, only 
a question in which I think there was a great deal of trouble—in connection 
with the fitting of the rivets, the rivet holes, in the first eight leaves. I hap¬ 
pened to be in the country and was asked to go out there and examine the 
leaves with Mr. Hammer and others, and they were not as good as they should 
be; and Mr. Hammer was puzzled as to what he had better do. He had" shipped 





McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


215 


66 of those girders which he thought would pass. I never saw those. The 
girders which were in the yard we examined together, and it was rather hard 
to arrive at a conclusion. They certainly were not as good as they should have 
been, and Mr. Hammer was much worried; but I think I would have felt just 
about the same as he did about those particular girders. I can not say but what 
I had approval of what he had done in that matter at that time. I do not see 
that he could have done any other way. 

The letters from which quotations have been made above are found 
in Mr. Crane’s testimony as Exhibits Nos. 7, 8, and 9 of that testi¬ 
mony. 

It does also appear from these letters, however, that a large number 
of angles were condemned for unfair holes which, after being in¬ 
spected by a trial with the plates, were passed and accepted. This 
would seem to indicate that the holes as originally punched were bet¬ 
ter than the inspectors thought they were from measuring them up 
without trying the actual plates on them, and substantiates the con¬ 
tention that unusual and unnecessary accuracy was being demanded 
in the spacing of the holes. 

The work went together all right in the field, but it is not certain 
as to what difficulty might have been experienced if these rejections 
had not been made. Whether or not the work should have been sub¬ 
jected to such close inspection in the shop as to measuring up of 
the holes, or accuracy in spacing, or whether this should have been 
left for the contractor to correct in the field, is a disputable question, 
but in view of the fact that half the value of the completed work was 
being paid for prior to erection, it is believed that the detail inspec¬ 
tion was justified. 

The material rejected under the conditions stated should not, 
in the opinion of your committee, be paid for. 


May 1, 1911. Contract 4845, girder G 14 It, serial 11; rejected— Pounds. 

Center web_3, 570 

Downstream chord angles-2,170 


5, 740 

The principal objection to the center web was that the holes were 
out one-eighth inch. This was in excess of the allowance that had 
been fixed by Mr. Hammer, under the direction of Mr. Goldmark, 
in his letter of April 17, 1911, Exhibits 11 and 12 in the testimony 
of Mr. Wolfel, of November 7. This was an unreasonably close limi¬ 
tation as to the amount the jig holes should be out before the material 
was rejected. (See testimony of Mr. Monniche, vol. 37, pp. 13, 14, 
and 15, and the statements of Mr. Wolfel in connection with that 
testimony on these pages.) 

Downstream chord angles: The only objection to these angles was 
that the holes were out one-eighth inch. This was unreasonably 
close, and the material should not have been rejected on this account, 
and should be paid for. 

May 15, 1911. Contract 4845, rejections owing to unsatisfactory holes: 


Girder G 14 R, serial 14— Founds. 

2 upstream chord angles, holes out of center- 4, 385 

1 miter end plate, oblong holes for A frames- 714 

2 quoin end plates, oblong holes for A frames-1, 428 

Girder G 14 It, serial 17— 

2 downstream chord angles, holes out of center_2,170 


8, 697 









216 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


In a letter dated May 15, 1911, to Mr. Hammer, Mr. Price states: 

Referring to girder G 14 R, serial 14, shop order 4845, the following parts 
are rejected account of a number of oblong holes in frame A connections, and 
a number of holes not properly spaced in the chord angles: Upstream chord 
angles, 2; end reinforcing plate at miter end, 1; end reinforcing plates at 
quoin end, 2. 

Referring to girder G 14 R, serial 17, shop order 4845: Downstream chord 
angles are rejected, owing to a number of holes not being properly spaced. 

In view of all the testimony in connection with the accuracy de¬ 
manded in the spacing of the holes, and in the absence of any specific 
statement from Mr. Price as to the number of oblong holes there 
were in the frame connections and as to how the holes were spaced 
in the chord angles and reinforcing plates at the miter and quoin 
ends of the girder, it is believed that this rejection does not appear 
to be supported by the evidence, and the amount of material, there¬ 
fore, should be paid for. 

Jan. 16, 1913. Contract 4873, rejection of all 8 by 8 by f inch angles on 

Jones & Laughlin heat, No. 14678_pounds— 5, 220 

On pages 220 and 221 of this report, especially page 221, there is 
quite a number of chord angles shown that were broken during some 
process of manufacture. It is understood that these chord angles 
came from this heat, and the rejection of these chord angles was made 
for the reason that it w T as not considered that the material from this 
heat was satisfactory for the lock gates. This rejection was properly 
made. 

Material listed by Mr. Price in Exhibit No. 8, volume 18 of the tes¬ 
timony, considered in detail above. Action recommended as follows: 
Rejected at the pickling plant, replaced without charge_number__ 917, 880 

Rejected after complete or partial fabrication of the members, as 
follows: 



Rejection 

approved. 

To be paid 
for. 

Rejected for rust pitting (see pp. 217, 218, and 219 of this report). 

Pounds. 

39,592 

94,893 

Pounds. 

100,240 

Admitted to have been properly rejected for various causes stated on pp. 222 and 
221 of this report. 

Material rejected for various causes stated on pp. 223 and 224, defects not con¬ 
sidered injurious. 


48,181 
7,760 
4,500 

Material rejected for oblong holes (see pp. 224 and 225 of this report). 


Rejections for surface defects (see pp. 225, 226, 227, 228, and 229 of this report)_ 

Rejections for piping (see pp. 229. 230, and 231 of this report). 

26,538 
28,366 
6,400 
47,665 

26,680 

Rejections account of slivers on edges of plates (see p. 232 of this report). 


Rejections for miscellaneous reasons (see pp. 232 to 236, inclusive, of this report).. 
Rejections account errors in punching and spacing of holes (see pp. 237 to 244, 
inclusive, of this report). 

1,856 

14,677 


Total. 

270,134 

177 214 




One hundred and seventy-seven thousand two hundred and four¬ 
teen pounds of the material that was contained in the list of rejected 
material prepared by Mr. Price, and referred to above, should be paid 
for at a price to be determined later. 

In addition to the material above specified, it appears that 55,884 
pounds of material was scrapped in connection with the making of 
the bounding angles. (See testimony of Mr. Pendergrass, vol. 15, 
pp. 121 and 122). Mr. Pendergrass states: 

I have found that in the case of these angles there was at least 55,884 pounds 
scrapped on account of trying to make them the way they were shown on the 





















McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


217 


design. I say, “ at least,” because I find that there was material ordered for 
the first contracts and cut up into lengths which would work out for the angles 
made in four pieces, and that they were not actually bent, or anything done on 
them, when it was decided that it was impracticable to make them that way; 
and those angles were transferred to other places on later contracts and were 
cut up; so that there would be some waste in connection with the use of those 
angles in other places; but just how much is a question. 

The orignal cost of the material for the angles was $1.40 per hun¬ 
dred weight. The scrap value of the material was $13.53 a ton. 
(See statement of charges made against the contract on account of 
scrapped material, Exhibit 27, vol. 27, of the evidence.) 

In view of the fact that expensive experiments were made with 
these bounding angles of the water-tight frames, and that they were 
made on material that was scrapped, it is recommended that the 
same allowance be made for the value of this material, per ton, as 
will be subsequently fixed as an allowance for other material under 
the first item of claim 3. 

An allowance has been made under claim C-7, appendix, pages 30 
and 31 of the original claim, pages 209 and 210 of this report, for 
17 tons of material removed on account of countersinking the rivets. 
This added to the allowance recommended here would make 267,098 
pounds of material rejected and thrown into scrap that is to be 
paid for. 

In Mr. Pendergrass’s statement of the effect of changes made by the 
agreement of August 8, 1910, and of other changes made in the work 
by subsequent agreements, he shows under B-4, page 10 of the ap¬ 
pendix to the original claim, pages 2 and 3, Exhibit 27, that the 
change in the design of the wedges specified therein caused the scrap¬ 
ping of 253,250 pounds of material that should not have been 
scrapped under the original design. It is also shown that in addi¬ 
tion to this the changes in the wedges required thin fillers to be pro¬ 
vided under the wedges and that the contractor was required to ship 
119,084 pounds and was only paid for 73,300 pounds. This would 
account for another 45,784 pounds of scrap. 

On page 3 of this statement, B-7, Mr. Pendergrass shows that 
14,540 pounds of material was lost in the adjustment of fillers be¬ 
tween the end reaction castings. 

Thirty tons of material was scrapped on account of the vent holes in 
the girders being enlarged. (See claim C-4, appendix to the origi¬ 
nal claim, p. 27, and statement of Pendergrass of Apr. 30, p. 8, 
Exhibit 27.) 

In addition to the above amount of material accounted for as scrap, 
it appears from the testimony of Mr. Barnes, volume 16, page 135, 
that 31,000 pounds of turned bolts sent to Pittsburgh were rejected 
and returned to the Rankin shops. This would account for a total 
of 940,922 pounds. 

Your committee recommends that an allowance for the value of 
300,000 pounds of scrap be made on item 1 of claim 2. This allow¬ 
ance would include 177,214 pounds on specific items above considered, 
55,844 pounds of material rejected in experimenting with the bound¬ 
ing angles, and about 10 per cent to cover unidentified items of ma¬ 
terial that must have been scrapped due to the great accuracy that 
was being demanded in the work, as heretofore shown. 

As heretofore shown, the general expenses and departmental shop 
labor cost of fabricating this material was $17.89 per ton, approxi- 


218 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


mately. The cost of the material purchased from Jones & Laughlin 
was $1.40 per hundredweight, or $28 per ton. These two sums added 
together would make $45.89 per ton. From this should be taken the 
scrap value of the material, which is between $11 and $12 per ton. 
The price to be paid for this material will, therefore, be fixed at 
$35 per ton, making an allowance of $5,250 on the first item of 
claim 3. 

The second item of claim 3 is for the weight of the excess rivets 
cut out. As nearly as your committee can arrive at the total number 
of rivets cut out, there were between 1,000,000 and 1,200,000. The 
weight of the excess rivets for which the Commission should be held 
responsible, and for which an allowance is recommended, is 300,000 
pounds. (For details see p. 475 of this report.) This at $35 a ton, 
the value heretofore fixed, would equal $5,250 to be allowed for the 
material and labor in excess rivets cut out, for which the Commis¬ 
sion should be held responsible. 

As heretofore shown, the claim for the bolt material put in stock 
on account of excessive demands of the Commission’s inspectors has 
not been substantiated. 

The total amount that it is recommended be allowed on claim 3 is 
$10,500. 

Claim 4, page 67: 

Fxtra cost of water stops soaked in red lead and linseed oil, put 
in place, $21,999.75. 

The water stops were necessary. They were not provided for under 
the original specifications. It was essential and necessary to secure 
water-tightness to use them, and it cost the Contractor a considerable 
sum of money to provide them. (See testimony of Mr. Guynn, vol. 
32, p. 41; also vol. 6, pp. 61 and 62; see also testimony of Mr. Wolf el, 
vol. 7, pp. 160 to 165, and testimony of Mr. Pendergrass, vol. 15, 
pp. 43 to 45; also testimony of Mr. Goldmark, vol. 7, pp. 161 and 
162.) 

The water stops were paid for under the provisions of item 1, 
which reads as follows: 

Note. —The above item is to cover all material not specifically listed in other 
items. 

It was undoubtedly unfair to require the contractor to provide 
water stops and to pay him only the price of item 1 for the material. 
The claim as finally stated is shown in Exhibit 83 of Mr. Wolfel’s 
testimony, volume 7, as follows: 

Washington, D. C., May 12, 1915. 

I further find that there was returned to the States two rolls of canvas or 
duck, one roll containing 105 yards and the other roll 20 yards, or a total of 
125 yards. One hundred and twenty-five yards at 61 cents per running yard 
equals $76.25. To this should be added the value of the canvas or duck used 
on the Isthmus to make tarpaulins, $180.56, or a total of $256.81. 

There should therefore be deducted from our claim of $22,232, given on page 
69, an amount equal to $22,232 X 257-^7,564=$755. 

This makes the total amount of our claim, finally, $22,232—$755, or $21,477. 

Paul L. Wolfel. 

(See also p. 70 of the claim.) 

This claim was further reduced to $21,094.75 by the Contractor 
when his claim was reduced to correspond with his books. (See 
p. 67 of the claim; see also Exhibit 85 of Wolfel’s testimony, vol. 7.) 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


219 


The use of water stops constituted a change in the specifications. 
For this change the Contractor would be entitled to reasonable com¬ 
pensation. It is considered that the claim for $21,094.75 is reason¬ 
able, and that the amount was equitably and justly due the Con¬ 
tractor on account of this change in the specifications. 

The amount of the claim should be allowed. 

Claim 5, page 67. This claim is as follows: 

Loss on shop output, due to delays, unfair demands of the Commission’s 
engineers, and unreasonable inspection, $123,660. 

On pages 70 and 71 of the original claim, the Contractor states the 
way this amount is arrived at as follows: 

? On page 72 we give table showing output of shop No. 2, the shop in which 
the lock gates were fabricated, for the year preceding and the year succeeding 
the period of 26 months, during which time the lock gates were manufactured. 
From this table it will be noted that the average monthly output of the shop 
for the year preceding and the year succeeding the manufacture of these gates 
was 3,451 tons, while the average monthly output of the shop for the 26 months 
during the fabrication of these gates was 2,562 tons, a loss of S89 tons per 
month. The total loss in output of the shop for the 26 months was 26 times 
889 tons, equals 23,114 tons. 

By an inspection of the table it will be seen that the output of the shop began 
to .drop immediately after the manufacture of these gates was started in 
November, 1910, dropping from 3,724 tons in November, 1910, to 2,631 tons in 
December, 1910, and still further to 2,098 tons in January, 1911, 1,132 tons in 
February, 1911, and 3,290 tons in March, 1911. This loss in output was 
entirely due to the unreasonable inspection and conditions imposed upon the 
Contractor by the Commission’s engineers and inspectors. 

The average profit made on the entire tonnage turned out by the Contractor 
for the year preceding the lock-gate work, and for the year succeeding the lock- 
gate fabrication was approximately $5.35 per ton. Consequently, the resultant 
loss on the reduced output due to the unfair demands of the Commission’s 
engineers, and the unreasonable inspection, was 23,114 tons at $5.35 per ton, or 
$123,660. 

The loss of output with which the Isthmian Canal Commission 
should be charged is 4,702 tons. (See p. 215 of this report.) 

In claims for damages for breach of a contract, loss due to antici¬ 
pated profits is not usually considered as a proper element of dam¬ 
ages, for the reason that such was not within the contemplation of 
the parties at the time of the making of the contract. (See case of 
Howard v. Stillwell & Bierce Manufacturing Co., 139 U. S., 199; 
case of Globe Refining Co. v. Landa Cotton Oil Co., 190 IT. S., 540; 
Cincinnati Gas Co. v. Western Siemens Co., 152 U. S., 200.) The 
courts do hold, however, that the loss of future profits due to tbe in¬ 
terruption of a going business by trespass is a proper element in 
awarding compensatory damages. (See case of Weinman v. De 
Palama, 232 IT. S., 571.) The court states in this case (p. 575) : 

In our opinion, the court correctly held that where a trespass results in the 
destruction of a building, with consequent interruption of a going business, the 
loss of future profits (these being reasonably certain and proved with reason¬ 
able exactitude) forms a proper element for consideration in awarding com¬ 
pensatory damages. 

The claim now under consideration is an equitable claim, and the 
Contractor should be compensated for losses caused to him in the 
fabrication of the lock-gate material “ under requirements as to char¬ 
acter and finish not fairly within the specifications.” 

Under this view it seems to your committee that the claim for loss 
of profits on an anticipated output, which was reasonably certain, 


220 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


should be allowed. The amount of such profits, as nearly as can be 
determined with any reasonable exactitude, is about $5 per ton. An 
allowance of $5 per ton on 4,702 tons is recommended on this claim. 

As heretofore shown, further compensation in connection with this 
delay, or rather further damages in connection with this delay of 50 
days, will be taken into consideration in adjusting the claim for rush 
work under claim 6. (See p. 215 of this report.) 

In connection with the recommendations as to the amounts to be 
allowed on the above claims, your committee submits the following 
statement: 

(1) The total amount allowed is equivalent to an increase in the 
contract price for fabricating the structural steel parts of the lock- 
gate material of about $2.56 per ton. 

(2) There were probably about 600 days consumed in the manu¬ 
facture of the lock-gate material. If the allowance above recom¬ 
mended should be spread out over the 600 days, it would amount to 
an allowance in excess of the payments heretofore made of about $230 
per day. 

(3) Where it has been necessary to establish normal costs from 
estimates, the statements of the committee in connection with such 
normal costs must be considered as estimates made from all of the 
testimony as representing the best judgment of the committee as to 
what the normal costs should have been from all the testimony. This 
is especially true as to the details of shop operations. (Pp. 202, 203, 
204, and 205 of this report.) 

(4) Your committee endeavored to give in as much detail as prac¬ 
ticable in this report the various elements upon which each conclu¬ 
sion rests, and has drawn from these details such conclusions as it 
deemed justified from all of the evidence. 

(5) It may seem, in some cases, that sufficient weight has not been 
given to the testimony of such experts as Mr. Goldmark and Mr. 
Wolf el as to the character of the material to be fabricated and the 
probable normal shop costs, and to the estimates of Mr. Pittman. But 
in view of the fact that there seems to have been, all the way through 
the shop operations in connection with this lock-gate material, under¬ 
estimating on the part of the Contractor, and probably under¬ 
estimating on the part of Mr. Goldmark as to the real character of 
this work, and underestimating as to the effect that the great num¬ 
ber of duplicate pieces would have on the shop cost, it is believed that 
the estimate made by your committee is fair, reasonable, and just. 

It is desired to state at this point also that there were a very large 
number of small pieces, some of which were quite difficult to manu¬ 
facture, and that it was necessary to manufacture a great number of 
small pieces accurately. 

(6) Your committee also desires to point out that under this con¬ 
tract it was necessary to so fabricate the material as to install a 
pumping system, which is not a usual thing in bridge work. 

(7) It was also necessary to so fabricate the material that access 
could be had to various compartments of the lock gates by means of 
manholes, which had to be made water-tight, running through the 
entire work. 

(8) It is also to be noted in this work that such parts of it as 
resembled ship work were to be fabricated in the yard, transported 
a distance and there erected, which is not a usual practice in connec- 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


221 


tion with ship work, and this fact alone would demand probably 
closer inspection and greater accuracy in the work than if it was to 
be fabricated and erected in the yard, where corrections in material 
erroneously manufactured could be remedied. 

(9) The fact that considerable saving was made by the Commission 
in weight by changes made under the agreement of August 8, 1910, 
might justify a larger allowance, if it were not for the fact that this 
saving was consented to by the Contractor, primarily, in considera¬ 
tion of having the end planing waived. The extent to which they 
were denied this consideration in connection with the waiving of 
the end planing will be taken care of in the allowance to be made 
under claim 6. 

(10) Owing to the numerous changes that were made in the speci¬ 
fications after the original bid was made on the original specifica¬ 
tions, it has been very hard to make any comparison between the 
estimated price of fabricating the work under the original specifica¬ 
tions and a proper normal under such specifications. If the work 
had been let to the next highest bidder, and like changes had been 
made in the specifications, it would have proportionately increased 
the shopwork to such next highest bidder, but in all probability his 
estimate for the shopcost of fabricating the material, with such 
additions as were made under the agreement of August 8, 1910, 
would have been higher than the final estimate that has been made 
by the Commission as to the proper normal shopcost. It has been 
necessary to take these things into consideration in order that, in 
the finai allowance, the contractor should not receive compensation 
for doing extra work in the shop which, under the terms of the origi¬ 
nal contract, would have had to have been done in the field. In 
other words, it would neither be just, equitable, nor fair to relieve 
the Contractor of field work under his bid and pay him increased 
compensation for doing that work in the shop. 

The allowances recommended on claims in connection with shop- 
work in the United States are as follows: 



Amount. 

Page No. 
of report. 

Claim Vn 1 HrftWin'”! - _ ..... 

$5,530.00 
77,264.64 
10,500.00 
21,091.75 
23,510.00 

137,949.39 

15 

211 

246,247 

243 

249 

Claim No! 2 , increased shop cost, changes, etc. 

Claim No 3 rejected material . 

Claim No 4 increase for water stop... 

Claim No 5 loss of output shop 2 - - f T ..... 

Total. 



This is about $2.56 per ton on the tonnage fabricated in shop No. 2. 


Appendix 0-1. 


[W. O 28323, delay on account of rejected material.] 


Pittsburgh, Pa., September 10, 1912. 


Maj. F. C. Boggs. 

Corps of Engineers, United States Army, 

General Purehasing Officer, Interstate Commerce Commission, 

Washington, D. C. 


Dear Sir : It appears that we will not be able to make final shipment of the 
rising stem valves covered by item 4, class 2, circular 636, our contract 5467, 















222 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


and the lateral culvert valves, covered by item 6, class 2, circular 636, our con¬ 
tract 5471, before early in December, owing to recent rejections of nickel-steel 
buckle plates and 20-inch beams. The material was rejected by Mr. Candler 
on account of surface defects in the steel revealed by pickling and sand blasting. 
The next rolling by Carnegie Steel Co. of nickel-steel plates is scheduled for 
about October 24, and of nickel-steel beams for about November 15. We have 
sent inquiries to all of the other mills making nickel steel, and we are unable 
to procure any better deliveries. 

Under the circumstances we trust you will grant us an extension of the con¬ 
tract time on such of the valves as are affected by these rejections. At the 
present time 16 nickel-steel buckle plates and 13 nickel-steel beams, for which 
we will enter replace orders at once, stand rejected. This will delay until some 
time in December the shipment of 9 rising stem valves and 1 lateral culvert valve. 

This does not take into account some beams previously rejected which have 
already been rerolled on replace orders, but which have not yet been delivered to 
us, and which, of course, have not been pickled or sand blasted. If any of these 
beams are rejected after pickling, it will increase the number of valves on which 
an extension of time will be necessary. 

Yours, truly, 

McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. 

E. W. Pittman, Manager Pittsburgh Plant . 


[W. O. 28323-5467-5471, rejected material.] 


Braddock, Pa., September 11, 1912 . 

Maj. F. C. Boggs, United States Army, 

General Purchasing Officer, Interstate Commerce Commission, 

Washington, D. C. 


Sir: I would refer to letter of McClintic-Marshall Construction Co., dated 
September 10, to your office relative to delay in final shipment of the rising 
stem and lateral culvert valves, which is claimed will be due to the rejection of 
material entering into the construction of these valves. 

It would seem that practically any delay could have been avoided in the 
fabrication of these valves due to rejected material. Material when rejected 
was not always promptly reordered. For example, on July 15, 17, and 20 there 
was a total of fifteen 20-inch nickel I-beams rejected owing to surface defects 
developed through pickling. Replace mill orders covering these beams were not 
issued until August 12. 

As a rule, material from the mills applying to this work has been stored 
in the yard for weeks before being pickled, consequently the final inspection 
for surface examination before fitting-up was delayed. Had material been 
pickled as soon as received, replace orders could have been immediately issued, 
and any suspension in the construction of these valves due to lack of material 
might have been avoided. In addition to material rejected just after pickling, 
there were a number of beams and plates rejected after being fabricated to the 
point of assembling, the rejections being due in nearly all cases to the pitted 
condition of the steel caused by exposure to the weather. 

The above information is respectfully tendered that you may be advised con¬ 
cerning circumstances pertaining to rejection of material entering into the 
request of the McClintic-Marshall Co. for an extension of the contract time. 

Very respectfully, 


A. V. B. Candler, 

Inspector, Interstate Commerce Com mission. 


[N. O. 28323—Supplementary progress report.] 

Braddock, Pa., October 19, 1912 . 

Mr. T. M. Post, 

Assistant Engineer, Isthmian Canal Commission, Washington, D. C. 

Sir: Very little work was performed on rising-stem valves in shops at 
Rankin during the past week, the completion of the last three valves being 
delayed awaiting the arrival of eight buckled plates. These plates have been 
forwarded from the Homestead mills to Ambridge for buckling, and with their 






McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


223 


probable receipt at the Rankin plant in the next few (lays, the finishing of 
valves by the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. should be completed some 
time next week. 

Four valves were machined at the Westinghouse Machine Co.’s plant during 
the past week, but, owing to shortage of cars and the shipment of Westinghouse 
material being given preference, these valves will not go forward from East 
Pittsburgh until next week. 

Very respectfully, 

A. A. Barenther, 

Inspector Isthmian Canal Commission. 


Appendix A. 

[McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. Works, Pittsburgh, Pottstown, and Carnegie, Pa.] 

Rankin, Pa., April 27, 1915. 

EXPLANATION OF CLAIM FOR INCREASED COST OF DRAWING-ROOM WORK ON ACCOUNT 
OF DELAYS, INCOMPLETE INFORMATION, AND CHANGES. 

The contract for the lock gates was signed June 21, 1910, and the work was 
immediately started in the drafting room. It was soon found that the designs 
were incomplete, and that considerable study would have to be made and 
general features worked out before the preparation of the shop drawings could 
be actually started. We started two of our ablest men on this and these two 
were assisted by others as soon as it was possible to use additional men. As 
pointed out on page 19 of appendix to claim, practically no work could be done 
until after the agreement of August 8 with Mr. Goldmark had been signed. 
We have looked up our records and find that up to the 1st of August there 
had been charged against the drawing for this work slightly over $600. We 
believe therefore that it is safe to assume that up to the 8th of August there 
had been at least $700 spent on this preliminary work, the greater part of 
which would have been avoided if the designs had been complete. The two 
principal features of design as it now occurs to us on which we spent the 
greatest amount of time were the construction of the ends, and the various 
details for insuring water-tightness, most of which had been entirely overlooked 
in preparing the designs. 

The drafting-room work was also delayed on account of the hold up in the 
water-tight frames, due to the likelihood of changing manhole covers and rings. 
As brought out in the claim, pages 3 to 6, inclusive, of appendix, we were pre¬ 
vented from ordering the water-tight frames until December 17, and were not 
given the final information for making the details until December 24, six 
months after the beginning of the drafting-room work. 

In working up the shop drawings, we would naturally start at the bottom of 
the gate, the part which is wanted first. Soon after we started, the question 
of the pump chamber in the bottom panel was discussed with Mr. Hammer, and 
it appeared that the pumping-system scheme would be changed. We were 
therefore held up on the drafting-room part of this work. Later on we were 
instructed to go ahead on the basis of the original design, and still later were 
advised that the system would be changed, and when information was finally 
received, we were compelled to make over several drawings, all as outlined on 
page 24 of appendix. 

We were also delayed in completing the work at the top of gates on account 
of missing information for mitering mechanism and strut connection. 

The only way to proceed economically with the making of shop drawings is 
to have the complete information at hand before the work is started. If work 
is started before complete information is at hand, the draftsmen constantly 
meet with details which can not be settled finally until further information is 
received and ar compelled to leave the drawings for this particular part of the 
work in an incomplete condition and take it up later or else drop this part of 
the work altogether. This has the effect of retarding the work, because the 
impression soon is made that as the work can not be completed there is no use 
in using up much energy in partially completing the details. It is therefore a 
very difficult matter to estimate, even approximately, the increase in cost of the 
drawings due to the delays as has just been outlined. We have already called 



224 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


attention to the fact that there was approximately $700 spent before August 8, 
the greater part of which was caused by incomplete information. In addition 
to this we believe that the increased cost of drawings, due to the lack of in¬ 
formation, would amount to probably 5 per cent of the total cost of the draw¬ 
ings or approximately $1,000. 

After more or less work had been done in the shop drawings, we were com¬ 
pelled to make a number of changes. As instructions for quite a number of 
these changes were verbal from Mr. Hammer, and as quite a number of these 
were of not very great importance, we are unable to give a complete list of such 
changes. The changes which are here mentioned do not include all the changes 
required and while possibly most of the other changes were of not very great 
importance, yet the total cost of the same would amount to considerable. The 
changes which we will call attention to in detail are as follows: 

(1) Change in pump chamber as outlined on page 24 of Appendix. This , 
change required the making over after having been once completed of drawings 
1-B to 5-B, inclusive, and considerable changes on sheets 3-A, 4-A, 5-A, 6 to 18, 
inclusive, 22, 47, 98, and 99. This change therefore required making over 5 
sheets which we have estimated to cost $45 each, and the revising of 20 sheets 
the cost of which we have estimated to be $400, or a total of $625. 

(2) Change in gauges as outlined on page 34 of Appendix. This required 
changes in the following drawings: 3-A, 3-B, 4-A, 5-A, 4—B, 5-B, 5 to 18, in¬ 
clusive, 47 to 64, inclusive, 73 to 78 inclusive, 81, 82, 84, 107, 108, 126, 127, and 
129, or a total of 51 drawings in all. The cost of revising these drawings we 
have estimated at $10 each or a total of $510. 

(3) Change in air vent as outlined on page 27 of Appendix. This required 
revisions on drawings 3-A, 3-B, 4-A, 4-B, 5-A, 5-B, and 6 to 13, inclusive, or a 
total of 14 drawings, the cost of revising of which we have estimated to be $15 
per sheet, or a total of $210. 

(4) Change in manhole frames as outlined on page 20 of Appendix. This 
required revising drawings 115 and 116 and the making of two new drawings, 
137 and 138. We have estimated the cost of revising the two drawings to be 
$30 and the cost of making two new drawings $90, or a total of $120. 

(5) Change in mitering mechanism as outlined on page 32 of Appendix. This 
required the revising of drawings 119, 120, 121, 123, 20-B, 20-C, and 97, a total 
of seven drawings, the cost of revising of which we have estimated at $15 each, 
or a total of $105. 

(6) Adding bent angles at top of air chamber as outlined on page 30 of Ap¬ 
pendix. This required revisions on drawings 12 and 13. We estimate the cost 
of same to be $30. 

(7) Changes in sheathing plates as outlined on page 32 of Appendix. This 
required the revision of drawings 37 to 45, inclusive, 28, 34, 35, 22, 23, 24, 25, 
28, 1-A, 1-B, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, and 55 to 60, inclusive; also the making over 
of drawings 36, 26, 27, 29, and 61; also the making of additional drawings 146, 
147, 148, 149, 150, and 151. The additional work required for this change is 
therefore represented by the revision of 31 drawings, making over of 5 draw¬ 
ings, and making 6 new drawings, and the total cost of this we estimate to be 
$805. 

(8) Mr. Hammer borrowed from us a man to prepare design drawings of 
manhole covers and frames according to the ideas of himself and Mr. Guynn, 
as mentioned on page 4 of Appendix. He prepared I. C. C. drawings 201 to 
210, inclusive, a total of nine drawings, at an estimated cost of $20 each, or $180. 

(9) After a drawing had been submitted for approval showing the curb fol¬ 
lower guard gate made of cast iron, as shown on design, Mr. Hammer requested 
that this be entirely changed, using structural steel instead of cast iron, which 
required the making of one additional drawing at the estimated cost of $45. 
The number of this drawing was 178. 

(10) A considerable amount of time was spent by die writer with Mr. Ham¬ 
mer in experimenting on and testing out different styles of gaskets for manhole 
covers. We believe that the drawing room spent probably $100 on this work, 
which does not include that part of the cost of this experimenting which was 
charged against the shop pay roll. 

(11) The work in the drafting room was delayed and the expenses thereof 
increased on account of the delay in approval of drawings as outlined on pages 
34 to 40, inclusive, of Appendix. This delay in the approval, particularly of the 
latter contracts, necessitated keeping draftsmen on this contract longer than 
would have been otherwise necessary. This amounted to considerable, as the 
drawings for the 66-foot gates were not approved for about 11 months after 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL construction CO. 225 

the,\ had been submitted. The delay in approving these drawings, as well as 

lose tor the 8~-foot gate, delayed any action upon the working up of spare parts. 
7 e pushed Mr. Hammer for the approval of the drawings for these two par- 
uculai contracts, and, not obtaining very much satisfaction, Mr. McClintic wrote 
to Mr. Goldmark, as mentioned on page 37 of Appendix. This delay resulted in 
increased cost in getting out the spare parts on account of the length of time 
which had elapsed since the drawings for the gates had been made. We believe 
that while it is questionable how much the cost of these delays in approving the 
drawings amounted to, yet it would not be unfair to assume that this would 
probablj equal 5 per cent of the total cost of the drawings, or in the neighbor¬ 
hood of $1,000. 

The specifications and contract called for the Contractor to furnish erection 
diagrams showing the application of the spare parts to the various gates, but did 
not require them to determine what spare parts would actually be required, 
except that, in general, these spare parts would consist of a complete 82-foot 
gate and a few other pieces for a 79-foot gate. We approached Mr. Hammer 
several times for more definite information as to exactly what spare parts were 
to be used and finally got from him a general idea of what was wanted. This, 
however, was verbal and was given only in a very general way and necessitated 
our taking one of the men who had checked a great deal of this work off from 
the work on which he was engaged to go into this matter in detail and prepare 
a list of spare parts which should be used. This matter was gone over with 
Mr. Hammer and revised, and, after a considerable length of time, we received 
the final information as to exactly what parts we were to furnish. The expense 
of all this work, which we believe was not a part of our contract, would amount 
to probably $250. In addition to this work on spare parts, Mr. Hammer insisted 
that we field check over all the pieces furnished as spare parts to make sure that 
they would match up and build up the gates as required. This required the 
services of two of the highest-priced men that had been used for this work for 
a period of several weeks at a cost of at least $300. This was required of us by 
Mr. Hammer after we thought we had all of the work required for the spare 
parts entirely finished. 

When the drawings were ready for approval, prints of the same were sub¬ 
mitted to Mr. Hammer. However, he took practically no action on such prints 
unless he had the man in charge of the squad at his elbow to assist him in going 
over those details and to answer any questions which he might raise. This 
work was constantly interrupted by Mr. Hammer’s time being taken for other 
work. This same thing was true in securing his approval of tables of quantities 
and weights and field rivets. It was also Mr. Hammer’s practice to call upon 
this same man whenever questions came up in regard to details as relating to 
shopwork, material, or shipping weights, so that we believe we are safe in say¬ 
ing that at least one-half of this man’s time was spent in Mr. Hammer’s office 
instead of in the drafting room. This not only took up his time, but had an 
indirect effect in increasing the cost of drawings on account of his absence from 
the squad of men over which he had charge. The first drawings were submitted 
for approval September 17, 1910, and the last drawings, not including the spare 
parts, were finally approved March 18, 1912, approximately 18 months. Assum¬ 
ing that at least one-half of this time was spent in Mr. Hammer’s office, it would 
appear that the cost of the drawings were therefore increased at least $1,500 and 
possibly as much as $2,000. 

We give below a summary of these various amounts: 


Lost time at the start_ $700 

Delays on account of information-1, 000 

Change in pump chamber_ 625 

Change in gauges- 510 

Change in air vent_ 210 

Change in manhole frames- 120 

Change in mitering mechanism- 105 

Addition of bent angles, top of air chamber- 30 

Change in sheathing plates- 805 

Man loaned to Mr. Hammer- 180 

Change in cast-iron curbs- 45 

Experimenting with manhole covers- 100 

Delay in approving drawings-1, 000 

Extra work on spare parts- 550 

Man in Mr. Hammer’s office-1, 500 

29249°—H. Doc. 906, 64-1-15 


















226 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


This total amount, as given above, is $7,480, instead of $8,890, as given in the 
claim. The reason for this discrepancy is due to the fact that, as previously 
stated, this list is not complete, and also because the amount of the claim was 
arrived at in a different manner, as follows: 

There was a total of 187 shop drawings, 48 diagrams, and 55 shop drawings 
made by our subcontractors. To determine the amount of the claim it would 
seem that the most reasonable way is to estimate what we consider as a fair and 
liberal amount for making these drawings, and that the difference between this 
amount and what they actually cost would be the cost of the delays, changes, 
etc. We have records showing that the average cost of drawings for a consider¬ 
able length of time was $37 per sheet. This was an average of all the drawings 
made by us over a considerable period, including erection diagrams. Some of 
these drawings were much simpler than the lock gates and some more compli¬ 
cated. On the lock gates the diagrams for the first gate were rather expensive, 
but after that they were made very cheaply. The drawings made by the sub¬ 
contractors were checked by us and certain time was spent in giving them infor¬ 
mation, such as the spacing of holes to connect to steelwork. We have, there¬ 
fore, estimated a liberal amount, figured as follows: 


187 shop details, at $45 per sheet_$8, 415 

48 diagrams, at $30 per sheet_,_ 1, 440 

55 subcontractors’ drawings, at $25 per sheet_ 1, 375 


or a total cost of $11,230, as against the original estimate of $8,200 and against 
the actul cost of $19,403. In obtaining the amount of the claim, we took the 
difference between the actual cost of $19,403 and the amount of our last estimate 
of $11,230 or $8,173 and added to this a profit of $717, or a total of $8,890. 

R. W. Pendergrass. 


Appendix B. 

McClintic-Marshall Construction Co., 

Pittsburgh, Pa., April SO, 1915. 

Mr. B. F. Harrah, Assistant Auditor, 

Panama Canal Building. 

Dear Sir : I am sending you herewith five copies of an estimate which I have 
made for Mr. Wolfel, covering the extra cost and saving to us of various changes 
in designs and specifications as outlined in appendix to claim. 

Yours, very truly, 

R. A. Pendergrass, 
Engineer Pittsburgh Plant. 

Cost of jigging—Extra cost of shop labor and material. 



Num¬ 

ber. 

Tons. 

Average 
holes one 
piece. 

Total 

holes. 

Cost of 
reaming 
per 100. 

Total 
cost of 
reaming. 

Setting 

jigs. 

Total. 

Girders. 

Diaphragms A. 

Diaphragms B. 

Water-tight frames. 

Non water-tight frames... 
Intercostals. 

Total. 

1,578 

2,914 

2,914 

2,734 

4,864 

13,128 

20,000 

3,350 

830 

2,400 

1,790 

620 

365 

120 

44 

100 

57 

10 

575,970 
349,680 
128,216 
273,400 
272,384 
131,280 

$3.19 

1.708 

1.44 

1.52 

2.036 

2.80 

$18,373.44 
5,972. 54 
1,846.32 
4,155.68 
5,545. 74 
3,675.84 

$6,580.26 

1.631.84 
611.94 

1,148.28 
2,042.88 

3.675.84 

$24,953.70 
7,604.38 
2,458.26 
5,303.96 
7,588.62 
7,351.68 

28,990 


1,730,930 


39,569.56 

15,691.04 

55,260. 60 






Total.... 
Handling 


$55,260. 60 
13, 405.50 


Supervision 


68,666.10 
5,149.90 


Cost of plates in jigs, 84,620 pounds, at $1.40 

Cost of bushings. 

Cost of making jigs. 

Saving in erection labor. 


73,816.00 
1,184.68 
923.00 
950.00 


76,873.68 









































McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


227 


Total number of holes reamed in shop, 1,730,930. In the field the reaming 
would have, in general, been through four thicknesses. Therefore the number 
of holes which would have been reamed in the field according to specifications 
, a t t 1,730,930 

would have been- : -equals 432,730. This at 10 cents per hole would have 

equaled 432,730X10 cents equals $43,273.00. 

Number of holes required in connecting castings to steelwork, which, accord¬ 
ing to the specifications, should have been drilled in the field, but were punched 
small in the shop: 


Extra cost of shop labor: 4S0,600 at 25 cents per hundred_$1, 200 

Increase in size of doubling plates: Extra cost of material and shop and 
erection labor: 

143 tons 1091-inch plates, at $1_ 143 

143 tons 1102-inch plates, at $2_ 2S6 

87 tons 101-inch plates, at $1_ 87 


373 . 510 


This added 160 tons of material and 60,700 extra field rivets. As the average 
number of rivets per ton for the entire work is 110, this should have added only 
17,600 rivets to have kept the cost down to the average. We are therefore 
entitled to pay for: 

60,700 minus 17,600 equals 43,100 rivets, at 15 cents per rivet equals $6,465. 

These 43,100 rivets added 14 tons, and as material for rivets averaged $9 per 
ton higher than the average cost of material, the extra cost of this is 14 tons 
at $10, $140. 

The total extra on this item is therefore $516.11 plus $6,465 plus $140. 
making a total of $7,121. 

Increase taper of wedge, agreement July 11, 1910, Mr. Goldmark (p. 23). 

Loss on account of scrap, extra cost of shop labor and material, which has 
never been paid for: 

Original design showed wedge tapering 1.8 in Ilf inches, while this was 
changed to seventeen thirty-seconds inch in 12 inches. 

Five thirty-seconds inch original design, nineteen thirty-seconds inch as made. 

Material lost in planing: 

Original design_pounds— 90,100 

Revised design-do- 343, 350 


253, 250 


253,250 pounds, at 0.03785 cent-$9, 585. 51 

Extra cost planing 25,200 linear feet, at 20 cents--- 5, 040. 00 


Less $16 per ton scrap and freight 


14, 625. 00 
2, 025. 00 


12, 600. 00 

The change in wedges required thin fillers to be provided under wedges. As 
we were paid for only the theoretical amount of fillers required, and as it was 
necessary to ship additional fillers, we should be paid for the difference. 

We shipped 119,084 pounds and were paid for 73,300 pounds. We are there¬ 
fore entitled to payment for 45,784 pounds, at 0.03785 cent per pound, amounting 
to $1,733.00. 

Fillers between splice plates and sheathing plates: Extra cost of material 
and shop labor: 

As the most of this material cost us extra, and as the thin material would 
cost very much higher per pound in the shop than the thicker material used on 
the contract, I have estimated the cost of this as follows and have taken the 
average cost of the sliopwork on the entire contract, as follows. 


















228 


McCLINTlC-MAKSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO 


Thickness. 

Number. 

\y eight. 

Extra for material. 

Shop 100 
per 100 
pounds. 

Shop 

cost. 

One-sixteenth inch.. 

One-eighth inch. 

Three-sixteenths inch. 

One-fourth inch. 

3,700 
1,554 
2,076 
5,120 

53,420 
29,716 
107,328 
289,792 

At $12 = $320 
At $5 = 75 

At $2 = 107 

$3. 70 
1.85 
1.23 
.92 

$1,976 

550 

1,320 

2,666 

480,256 

502 

6,512 


Total. $6,512 

Average cost of shop work, 90 cents per 100 pounds. 4,322 


i 2,290 
2 502 


Cost of chamfering edges of sheathing plates, 2,472 plates, at $1.60 


2,792 
3,955 


Total.•.. 

1 Shop. 


1 Material. 


6,747 


Adjustment fillers between end reaction castings, extra cost of material and 
shop labor: Ordered weight, 24,230 pounds; shipped weight, 9,690 pounds. 


Material_$3. 80 

Fabrication_ 5. 00 

Drawings_ .05 

Paint_ . 05 

Freight_ .30 


*9. 20 

$9.20 minus $2.70 equals $6.50. 

9,690 pounds, at 6£ cents_ 

Adjustment fillers except for end rea 


Contract costs: 

Material_$1.45 

Fabrication_ . 90 

Drawings_ .01 

Paint_ . 04 

Freight_ .30 


2. 70 

-$630.00 

castings: 


Extra cost of material. 


Thickness. 

Weight 

(pounds). 

Per ton. 

Cost. 

One-sixteenth inch. 

8,852 
11,128 
14,208 
22,228 

$12.00 

5.00 

2.00 

$54.00 

27.00 

14.00 

One-eighth inch. 

Three-sixteenths inch. 

One-fourth inch. 




95.00 

Thickness. 

Weight 

(pounds). 

Per 100 
pounds. 

Cost. 

One-sixteenth inch. 

8,852 
11,128 
14,208 
22,228 

$3.70 

1.85(1.85) 

1.23 

.92 

$327.00 
206.00 
175.00 
205.00 

One-eighth inch. 

Three-sixteenths inch. 

One-fourth inch. 

56,416 pounds at 90 cents average shop cost. 

913.00 
508.00 




405.00 

95.00 

500.00 


Changing one line 14" bolts to 1£" rivets in each wing of end reaction castings 
Agreement July 11, 1910. Mr. Goldmark. P-33. 


1 Per hundredweight, 









































































McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


229 


Extra cost of material and erection labor: 73,500 rivets—15 cents cost of driv¬ 
ing in excess of cost of placing bolts, $11,025. 

73,500 equals 70 tons, at $10 per ton_ $700. 00 


11, 725. 00 

Price of turned bolts, $0,073. 

Price of rivets, $0.03785. 

Cost of bolts, original design—688,000, at $0.073_$50, 224. 00 

Cost of bolts and rivets as built—370,500, at $0.073_ 27, 046. 00 

146,000, at $0.03785_ 5,627.00 


Saving to commission_ 17, 651. 00 


Use of 1-incli rivets in upstream material over eleven-sixteenths inch thick 
with 8x8 inch angles. 

Extra cost of material and shop labor: 3£-inch average pitch of 1-inch rivets; 
3j-inch average pitch of seven-eighths inch rivets. 

1,427,000 1-inch rivets replace 1,646,500 seven-eighths inch rivets. 


1,427,000, at 14.7 cents_$209, 769. 00 

1,646,500, at 10.7 cents_ 176, 175. 00 

Extra cost of driving_ 33, 594. 00 


Average grip of rivets, 2£ inches. 

1,427,000 x 1.34_1,912,180 pounds. 

1,646,500 x .929_ 1, 529, 600 


382, 580 at $10 per ton_ 1, 913. 00 


35, 507. 00 

Omitting splices in cover plates and sheathing, saving to commission and 
extra cost of shop labor, crating material, and drawings: 


Pounds. 

Reducing cover plates from 13^ to 12f inch_110, 000 

Downstream cover-plate splices_ 74, 800 

Upstream cover-plate splices_ 456, 200 

Downstream sheathing-plate splices_ 304, 600 


945, 600 

Saving to commission 945,600 pounds, at $0.03785, $35,793. 

In obtaining the extra cost to us of this we have estimated as follows: 


12 drawings, at $35 per drawing_ $480. 00 

50 tons of material, at $40 per ton_ 2, 000. 00 

Shop labor and extra insurance and wood required in boxing: 

1,961 tons, at $3 per ton_ 5, 883. 00 

Added to girders 687 tons, at $1_ 687. 00 


9, 050. 00 

Mill stiffeners to obtain bearing to keep girder to uniform depth. Agreement 
July 11, Mr. Goldmark, p. 20. 

Extra cost of shop labor: 

18 pairs stiffeners per girder. 

1, 540 girders. 

38 spare parts. 


1, 578 
279 


1, 300 girders, at $4_$5, 200. 00 

Splitting diaphragm “ B ” as per agreement July 11, 1910, with Mr. Goldmark. 
Extra cost labor, extra field rivets through chord angles: 

23,400, at 15 cents---$3, 510. 00 


Omitting of clipped corners; saved in shopwork and material; number of clips 
omitted, 26,782. 

Average weight of material which would have been scrapped by each clip, 
pounds. 































230 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


26,782 X 2\ equals 66,955 pounds, at $1.40_ $937. 00 

Clipping and chipping cuts: 26,782, at 5 cents- 1, 339. 00 

Total saving_ 2, 276. 00 


Changing tapered fillers: Saving to McC. M. Co., in shop work and material: 
3,692 bevel fillers 5 inches wide by 5 feet 10 inches long, beveled from three- 
fourths to seven-sixteenths inch, required by original design. 


Material which would have been scrapped: 

26,320 pounds, at $1.40 per cwt_ $368. 00 

9,870 lin. ft. of planing, at 20 cents_ 1, 974. 00 


Total saving_ 2, 342. 00 


Additional holes punched, 44,000, at 20 cents per 100_ S8. 00 

Additional fitting, 1,692 pieces, at .05 cents_ 85. 00 

- 173.00 


Net saving_=- 2,179. 00 

Using fillers under stiffeners: Saving in shop labor: 

Number of crimps omitted, 28,080, at 31 cents each_$983. 00 

Number of holes punched instead of drilled: 

Saving to McC. M. Co., 3,204,000, at 30 cents per hundred_$9, 612. 00 

Material scrapped on account of enlarged vent holes in girders: Loss to us on 
account of material scrapped: 

30 tons, for which, after allowing the scrap value of this material 

we are entitled to $59.00 per ton, or_$1, 770. 00 

Cost of water stops: Extra cost of material and shop and erection 
labor: 

Required 223,200 sq. ft. of canvas weighing 22,940 pounds_$7, 564. 00 

We assumed that one gallon of red lead and linseed oil would satu¬ 
rate 60 sq. ft. This would require 3,720 gallons, at $1.50 per 

gallon_ 5, 580. 00 

Assuming that the cost of applying this paint and oil and putting 
the water stops in position with cost .04 cent per square foot, the 
cost of this amounts to___ 8, 928. 00 


Total cost of canvas, paint, and placing_ 22, 072. 00 

Received at contract price-:_ 222. 25 


21, 849. 75 

Adding bent angles at ends of girders, top of air chambers: Extra cost of 


shop labor: 

188, at $8.00_$1,504.00 

(Hammer’s request in approving sheets Nos. 12 and 13.) 

Countersunk rivets: Extra cost of shop and erection labor and loss on ac¬ 
count of material scrapped: 

Shop, 440,000, at three-fourths cent each_$3, 300. 00 

Field, 308,000, at 5 cents each- 15, 400. 00 

Total- 18, 700. 00 


In countersinking, this removed 17 tons of metal, for which we would have 
obtained payment under the original design and for which, allowing for scrap, 
we are entitled to $59.00 per ton or, $1,003.00, which gives a grand total to 
which we are entitled of $19,703.00. 

Angles in water-tight frames made in one piece instead of four: Extra cost 
of shop labor: 

2, 544 
96 


2.640, at $3.00 


$7, 920. 00 


































McCLINTIC-MAESHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


231 


Summary. 



Extra cost 
to McC. M. 

Saving to 
McC, M. 

• 

Extra cost 
to McC. M. 

Saving to 
McC. M. 

B-l. 

$76,873.00 
1,200.00 
7,121.00 
14,333.00 
6,747.00 
1,130.00 
11,725.00 
35,507.00 
9,050.00 
5,200.00 
3,510.00 

$43,273.00 

B 13 


$2,276.00 
2,179.00 
983.00 
9,612.00 

B-2. 

B-14 


B-3. 


B-15 


B-4. 


B-17... 


B-5, B-0. 


C-4... 

$1,770.00 
1,504.00 
19,703.00 
7,920.00 

B-7. 


C-6. 


B-8. 


C-7... 


B-9. 


C-8.. 


B-10. 




B-ll. 


203,293.00 

58,323.00 

B-12. 





Note.—C- 5 is not included in this summary, as it is a separate claim. 

(Signed) R. A. Pendergrass. 


Analysis of extra shop labor and expenses added'■ by the Goldmark agreement 
of August 8, 1910, and subsequent changes authorized by Mr. Hammer and 
considered in the appendix of the claim. 


This analysis is made from the data furnished by Mr. Pendergrass of April 
30, 1915, Exhibit 27, and the analysis of this charge made by Mr. Wolfel and 
submitted November 4, 1915, and found in the file—“ Miscellaneous data taken 
from the records and furnished by the Contractor.” 


B l. Wolfel and I agree_$74, 766. 00 

B-2. Wolfel and I agree_ 1, 200. 00 


B-3. Wolfel classes all this as material. There should be a 
charge for 60,700 field holes added and the cost of making 
60,700 rivets of not less than $3.50 a ton for shop labor 
on rivets and of 70^ a ton for punching 6,070 holes in 
160 tons of material: 

$3. 50 x 160_$560. 00 

. 70 x 160_ 112. 00 


672. 00 

Total to be added to Wolfel’s statement for this item_ 672. 00 

B-4. Wolfel and I agree_ 5, 040. 00 

B-5 & 6. Wolfel and I agree_ 6, 245. 00 

B-7. The shop labor in this item is hard to separate for fillers 
between end reaction casting; the shop labor added is 
$5.00 per hundred less 90<? or $4.10 on 9,690 pounds or 

$397.29 as I find it. On other fillers it is $405.00_ 802. 29 

B-8. All field and material. 

B-9. No charge by Wolfel. The increase of $10.00 a ton to cover 
cost of making rivets is a shop labor charge and should 

be added_ 1,913.00 

B-10. Wolfel charge for labor is $4,000.00. My charge is 


$7,050.00. My charge included all but $2,000.00 for • 
material. The drawing, $480.00, should not have been 
included because it is a separate item. The extra in¬ 
surance and wood which Mr. Wolfel takes out is 
$1,883.00, which 'may be large, but as there is no way to 


verify it, we will accept it. The charge of $1.00 per ton 
for 687 tons added to girder is not credited by Wolfel. 

Corrected amount, labor charge_ 4, 000. 00 

B-ll. Wolfel and I agree_ 5, 200. 00 

B-14. Wolfel has no charge for added labor, but deducts $173 
from $1,974—leaving $1,801 saved. Should be $173 added 
under my form of statement_ 173. 00 


Total added, Goldmark agreement 


100, 011. 29 































































232 


McCLlNTlC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO 


Shop labor expense saved, Goldmark agreement. 

B-13. 

B-14. 

B-15. 

B-17. 

B-19. 


Total saved_ 21, 308. 00 

Added labor, Goldmark agreement_$100, Oil. 29 

Saved__•_ 21, 308.00 


Wolf el and I agree_ $1. 339. 00 

I credit whole saving because have charged the increase— 1, 974. 00 

Wolfel and I agree_ 983. 00 

Wolfel and I agree_ 9, 612. 00 

Not included by Pendergrass and not in my statement- 7, 400. 00 


78, 703. 29 

Added for changes: 

C-6. Not included in my statement_ 1, 504. 00 

C-7. Wolfel and I agree_ 3, 300. 00 

C-8. Wolfel gives $13,832. I have $13,S72. Correct amount- 13, 832. 00 


Total 


18, 636. 00 


All labor increase, Goldmark agreement_ 78, 703. 29 

Changes subsequently made_ 18, 636. 00 


97, 339. 29 


Appendix C. 

McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. 
DEPARTMENTAL SHOP COST CONTRACT RECORD. 
LPanama contracts 4845-67, inclusive, and 4873.] 


Department. 

Cost. 

Rate 
per ton. 

Making templets. 

$4,998. 31 

$0.09 

Making patterns.. 

52. 20 


Unloading. 

6,878.57 

.13 

Plate straightening. 

3,396.10 

.06 

Running in. 

5,507.14 

.10 

Weldg. and Dplx. Mlg. 

3,184.75 

.06 

Shearing. 

13,436.54 

.25 

Laying off. 

22,706.45 

.42 

Trucking in L. O. and P. 



Depts. 

7,887.97 

.15 

Punching. 

48,884.93 

.91 

Punching Cont. Washers. 

143. 68 


Drilling. 

* 10,896. 46 

.20 

Pickling. 

6,318. 75 

.12 

Edge planing. 

12,283. 40 

.23 

Bending andstraightening.... 

3,126.51 

.06 

Fitting. 

71,079.02 

1.32 

Trucking in F. and R. Depts.. 

8,308. 65 

.15 

Making jigs. 

747. 24 

,01 

Reaming. 

5,689.54 

.11 


Department. 

Cost. 

Rate 
per ton. 

Sub-Punched reaming. 

$50,924. 44 

$0.94 

Bulldozer. 

6,390.89 

.12 

Machine riveting. 

32,963. 36 

.62 

Hand riveting. 

1,574.78 

.03 

Sand blast. 

13,002.32 

.24 

Rotary planing. 

14,584. 23 

.27 

Boring. 

465.09 

.01 

Calking and riveting ladders .. 

1,798. 22 

.03 

Grinding. 

872.47 

.02 

Chipping. 

14,255. 32 

.26 

B lacksmith shop. 

41,477. 69 

.77 

Machine shop. 

10,799. 36 

.20 

Running out. 

Storing. 

10,508.63 
85. 01 

.19 

Loading and bracing. 

' 8,520. 42 

.16 

Indirect labor. 

19,232. 74 

.35 

Painting. 

11,180. 36 

.21 

Total. 

474,161.54 

8.79 


RECORD FROM FEBRUARY, 1913, TO FEBRUARY, 1914. 


Making templets. 

Making patterns. 

Unloading. 

Plate straightening. 

Running in. 

Stockyard. 

Shearing. 

Laying off. 

Trucking in L. O. and P. 

Depts. 

Punching.. 

Punching cont. washers. 

Drilling. 

Milling. 

Edge planing. 

Bending and straightening_ 

Fitting.. 

Trucking in F. and R. Depts. 

Sand blast. 

Reaming. 


$10,068.01 

$0. 26 

17. 44 


3,826. 75 

.10 

1,084.44 

.02 

5,238.29 

.13 

1,357.09 

.03 

8,298. 43 

.21 

12,181.87 

.31 

3,847.54 

.10 

22,191.71 

.57 

24.08 


6,973.66 

.18 

79.07 


991.02 

.02 

1,266. 93 

.03 

42,694.16 

1.10 

5,149.61 

.12 

553. 71 

.14 

11,022.93 

.28 


Sub punched reaming. 

Bulldozer. 

Machine riveting. 

Hand riveting. 

Cut out and redrive rivets.... 

Rotary planing. 

Boring. 

Caulk and riveting ladders_ 

Pickling. 

Chipping. 

Blacksmith shop. 

Machine shop. 

Running out. 

Storing. 

Loading and bracing. 

Indirect labor. 

Painting. 

Total (38,417 tons). 


$12,317.86 

$0.32 

184. 85 


25,827. 67 

.69 

9,899.98 

.25 

.98 


4,290.52 

.10 

259. 76 

.01 

8.25 


20.13 


3,305.79 

.08 

6,537. 64 

.17 

2,793.94 

.07 

4,776. 42 

.12 

118.23 


5,311.38 

.13 

35,852.39 

.93 

. 7,132.62 

.18 

255,505.15 

6. 65 


























































































































McCLINTIC-MAKSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO 


233 


Appendix C — Continued. 

McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. —Continued. 

RECORD FROM DEC., 1909, TO NOV., 1910. 


Department. 

Cost. 

Rate 
per ton. 

Making templets. 

$12,898.80 
938.61 
6,040.37 
2,564.69 
4,593.09 
1,957.09 
9,708.63 
13,581.38 

6,430.77 
28,118.99 

$0.29 
.02 
.14 
.06 
.10 
.04 
.22 
.31 

.14 

.63 

Making patterns. 

Unloading. 

Plate straightening. 

Running in.7. 

Stockyard. 

Shearing. 

Laying off.*.. 

Trucking in L. 0. and P. 
Depts. 

Punching. 

Punching cont. washers....... 

Drilling .. 

1,625.82 

.04 

Milling .. 

Edge planing. 

1,158.75 
1,558.23 
52,105.46 
4,603.S6 
20.36 
9,195.38 

.03 

.04 

1.17 

.10 

Bending and straightening.... 
Fitting. 

Trucking in F. and R. Depts.. 
Making jigs. 

Reaming. 

.21 



Department. 

Cost. 

Rate 
per ton. 

Subpunched reaming. 

16,423.68 

.37 

Countersinking... 

Machine riveting. 

33,648.24 

.76 

Hand riveting..7. 

11' 751.13 

.26 

Cut out and redrive rivets .. . 


Rotary planing. 

4,792.42 

.11 

Boring.... 

' 909.20 

.02 

Caulk and riveting ladders.... 

Grinding... 



Chipping. 

2.931.97 

6,774.48 

.07 

Blacksmith shop. 

.15 

M achine shop.. t. 

9i 933.87 
4,966.11 

.22 

Running out. 

.11 

Storing... 


Loading and bracing. 

5,211.19 

.12 

Indirect labor. 

Painting. 

7,948.45 

.18 


Total (44,419 tons). 

262,391.02 

5.91 


No. 2 shop . excluding Panama, December, 1910, to January, 1913, inclusive. 

[Contracts 4845-67 and 73.] 


Department. 

Cost. 

Rate 
per ton. 

Making templets... 

$1,942.74 

$0.14 

Makin? patterns. 

1,50.28 

.01 

Unloading . 

1,203.36 

.09 

Plate straightening. 

445.94 

.03 

Running in. 

1,962.32 

.14 

Oiling plates. 

10.51 

Shearing . 

4,419.74 

.32 

Laying off. 

4’ 966.35 

.36 

Trucking in L. O. and P. 
Depts. 

2,054.82 

.15 

Punching. 

9,980.01 
19.76 

.71 

Piinehinp- rnnt. washers. 

Drilling . 

2,183.17 
757.65 

.16 

Picklin? . 

.05 

Edge planing. 

1,045.75 
679.18 
22.728.24 

.08 

Bending and straightening.... 
Fitting . 

.05 

1.62 

Trucking in F. and R. Depts.. 
Making jigs ._. 

3,171.76 
44.92 

.22 

Reaming . 

3,226.65 

.23 



Department. 

Cost. 

Rate 
per con. 

Subpunched reaming. 

$8,318.48 

4.75 

$0.59 

Bulldozer.7. 

Machine riveting. 

13,957.38 
8,701.58 

1.00 

Hand riveting. 

.62 

Sand blast. 

' 528.30 

.04 

Rotary planing. 

1,996.48 

.14 

Boring/..7. 

'522.85 

.04 

Calk and riveting ladders. 

Grinding. 

. 304.02 

25.07 

.02 

Chipping. 

2,126.97 
3,03,5.35 

.15 

Blacksmith shop. 

.22 

Machine shop... 

7,346.74 

. 53 

Running out. 

2,529.54 

7.38 

.18 

Storing . 


Loading and bracing. 

2,554.15 
13.28 

.18 

Duplex milling. 

Painting. .. 

1,718.20 

.12 


Total. 

114,683.68 

8.19 




















































































































REPORT OF COMMITTEE IN DETAIL. 


PART II. 


Claim 6, page 67, of the original claim: This claim as originally 
stated by the Contractor was as follows: 

6. Extra cost of erection due to conditions imposed upon the Contractor con¬ 
trary to the contract requirements, also to conditions that caused extra expense, 
which should be borne by the Commission, to unreasonable inspection in the 
field, and to the necessity of completing the work within the time demanded, 
in spite of numerous delays caused by the Commission, and the extra work 
necessary on account of the conditions mentioned above and unreasonable 
inspection, $1,325,091. 

It has since been reduced to $1,218,475. 

The manner of arriving at the amount of claim 6 is shown on 
pages 73 to 85, inclusive, of the original claim. The amount of the 
claim is arrived at by taking the total actual erection expense in¬ 
curred at Mirafiores and deducting from such total actual erection 
expense the amount with which the Contractor thinks the Isthmian 
Canal Commission should be charged, to obtain what he claims to be 
the normal expense at Mirafiores. This is shown as follows (see p. 75 
of the claim) : 


Total erection expense incurred at Mirafiores_$911, 259 

From this should be deducted, for reasons given below, the following 
amounts, for which the Contractor holds the Commission respon¬ 
sible : 

(a) Condition of yards and tracks--- $6, 753 

(b) Bolting up with small holes, 37.8 per cent of $153,303— 57,950 

(c) Reaming out the small holes, one-fourth of $53,070_ 13, 270 

( d ) Water in lock chambers- 5,000 

(e) Excess riveting, $46,850 plus $58,350 divided by 2- 52,600 

(/) Excess grinding, three-fourths of one-third of $119,900— 29,966 

(ff) Excess cleaning, one-half of $14,800- 7, 428 

(h) Rush work, 17,752 tons, at $8 per ton- 142,000 

- 314,967 


Total normal expense- 596, 292 

To this normal cost at Mirafiores the Contractor adds 50 per cent 
on eight leaves at Gatun and 30 per cent on eight leaves at Pedro 
Miguel, to cover the extra expense in getting the work started, or 10 
pei^ cent of the normal cost at both Gatun and Pedro Miguel, and 
adds to the total thus arrived at a proportion of the general expenses 
equal to the amount claimed as excess labor cost. (See p. 85 of the 

claim.) . 

After assuming that the normal cost of erection at Mirafiores 
equals $33.49 a ten has been established, the Contractor states his 

235 














236 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


method of arriving at the total amount of claim 6 as follows (see 
p. 85 of the claim) : 

It has been shown that the normal cost of erection at Miraflores should have 
been $33.49 per ton. 

The Contractor concedes that to get the work started at Gatun and Pedro 
Miguel a certain amount of excess cost should be allowed on the first leaves 
erected at these sites, and he has estimated that a liberal allowance on account 
of this would be 50 per cent on 8 leaves at Gatun and 30 per cent on 8 leaves 
at Pedro Miguel. This would make the normal cost both at Gatun and Perdo 
Miguel 10 per cent higher than the cost at Miraflores, or $36.84 per ton. 

The Contractor, therefore, claims that there is due him from the Commission 
the following amounts: 


Gatun, 25,498 tons, at $53.83, minus $36.84, equals_ $433, 210 

Pedro Miguel, 14,924 tons, at $59.37, minus $36.84, equals- 336, 238 

Miraflores, 17,752 tons_ 314, 967 


Total_ 1,084,415 

To this should be added an amount covering transportation, liability, 
and general expenses, which should be prorated in accordance with 
the actual total expenses and the Contractor’s claim or $391,891 X 
$1,084,415 $3,170,007 equals_ 134, 060 


1, 218, 475 

This is the total amount claimed by the Contractor as to the extra expenses 
he was put to at the Isthmus on account of the actions of the Commission. 

The total of the above claim was originally $1,325,091. (See p. 85 
of the claim as originally printed.) 

The reduction in the amount made by the Contractor was to elimi¬ 
nate duplication of the charge for rush work, as shown on page 75 
of the original claim, and also in order to allow the proper credit 
for rivets and rivet rods that were discovered to have been disposed 
of by the Contractor in excess of the amount claimed in the original 
claim. (See pp. 78, 79, 80, and 81 of the original claim.) 

The normal cost per ton at Miraflores, on the basis of the method used 
by the contractor at arriving at a total normal labor cost, as shown 
on page 75 of the claim, is $33.59, instead of $33.49, as claimed by the 
contractor. This is shown by dividing $596,292 by 17,752, the num¬ 
ber of tons at Miraflores. In order to find the correct normal at 
Miraflores, including the item of transportation, liability, and gen¬ 
eral expenses, there should be added to the normal cost per ton for 
labor the normal cost per ton for transportation, liability, and 
general expenses, page 85 of the claim. The actual amount of 
transportation, liability, and general expenses is $391,891. The 
average amount per ton can be arrived at by dividing $391,891 
by 58,174, the number of tons involved. This would give $6.74 a 
ton as the actual cost per ton for this item. The normal cost per 
ton of this item at Miraflores is found by multiplying the normal 
labor cost per ton—$33.59—by the actual cost per ton for transporta¬ 
tion, liability, and general expenses—$6.74—and dividing the product 
by the actual labor cost per ton at Miraflores, which is $51.33. 
This method would give $4.41 as the normal cost per ton for trans¬ 
portation, liability, and general expenses at Miraflores. Four dollars 
and forty-one cents added to $33.59 would give $38 as the actual 
normal cost at Miraflores for labor and general expenses, on the 
basis of the contractor’s claim. Ten per cent of the tonnage price 
thus arrived at at Miraflores should be added to find the normal cost 
per ton at Gatun and Pedro Miguel. Ten per cent of $38 is $3.80. 










McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 237 

which would give the normal cost per ton at Gatun and Pedro Miguel 
as $41.80. These normals applied to the tonnage at the various locks 
would give the actual normal expenses at the various locks. 

The table below shows the number of tons at each lock, the normal 
cost per ton, and the total normal, including the transportation, lia¬ 


bility, and general expenses: 

Total normal. 

Gatun, 25,498 tons, at .$41.80 per ton_$1, 065, 817 

Pedro Miguel, 14,924 tons, at $41.80 per ton_ 623, 823 

Miraflores, 17,752 tons, at $38 per ton_ 674, 576 


Total__ 2, 364, 216 

The tables below give an analysis of the Contractor’s claim as it 
would be applying the normal cost per ton arrived at as above: 

Actual expenditure for labor_$3,170, 007. 00 

Actual general expenses_ 391, 891. 00 


Total actual_ 3, 561, 898. 00 

Less total normal_ 2, 364, 216. 00 


Total of claim_ 1,197,682.00 

Actual price per ton, including general expenses: 

Per ton. 

Actual, Gatun, $53.83+$6.74_ $60. 57 

Actual, Pedro Miguel, $59.37+$6.74_ 66.11 

Actual, Miraflores, $51.33+$6.74_ 58.07 

Total excess per ton, including general expenses: 

Actual, Gatun, $60.57 — $41.80_ 18.77 

Actual, Pedro Miguel, $66.11 — $41.80_ 24. 31 

Actual, Miraflores, $58.07 —- $38.00_ 20.07 


Excess in claim: 

Gatun, 25,498 tons, at $18.77_ 478,597.46 

Pedro Miguel, 14,924 tons, at $24.31_• 362,802.44 

Miraflores, 17,752 tons, at $20.07_ 356,282.64 


Total_ 1,197, 682. 54 


It will be noted from the above tables that the total amount of the 
claim thus arrived at vmuld be $1,197,682, instead of $1,218,475, as 
shown by the method of computation used by the Contractor. The 
method of arriving at the normal on the basis of the Contractor’s 
claim is more accurate than the method pursued by the Contractor. 

In the first place, there is a difference of 10 cents a ton in the 
normal cost at Miraflores, and in the second place this method of 
computation charges the item of transportation, liability, and gen¬ 
eral expenses with its proportion of the admitted increase for start¬ 
ing the work at Gatun and Pedro Miguel. 

On August 29, 1914, the Contractor requested Mr. Samuel Phillips 
Mitchell, of Philadelphia, to prepare an estimate covering what he 
thought the erection of the lock gates of the Panama Canal should 
have cost. On September 16, 1914, Mr. Mitchell submitted an esti¬ 
mate covering the cost of erecting the lock gates. (See testimony 
of Mr. Mitchell of Aug. 31, 1915, vol. 33.) 

The testimony of Mr. Mitchell in connection with the preparation 
of this estimate and how he came to submit it is quoted in full below: 

Mr. Sterrett. What is your name? 

Mr. Mitchell. Samuel Phillips Mitchell. 

Mr. Sterrett. What is your business? 

Mr. Mitchell. My business is that of consulting engineer, particularly with 
relation to the construction of large bridges and steel structures, and in this 



























238 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


connection I furnish estimates of the cost of erection for the purpose of bidding 
to large construction companies. 

I am at the present time engaged as consulting engineer by the St. Lawrence 
Bridge Co. on the construction of the Quebec Bridge for the Canadian Govern¬ 
ment. 

I am, further, president of the Seaboard Construction Co., which company is 
engaged in the construction of large bridges and structures in steel and concrete. 

Mr. Sterrett. Where is your office located? 

Mr. Mitchell. No. 1024 Witherspoon Building, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Mr. Sterrett. Will you please state your previous experience in connection 
with the manufacturing and erecting of large steel structures, both bridges and 
buildings? 

Mr. -Mitchell. My first experience in connection with bridge construction was 
as inspector of bridges for the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. during the con¬ 
struction of their Philadelphia branch, 1885-1887. 

1887-1889, as assistant engineer for the Edge Moor Bridge Works, particularly 
in charge of the erection of a bridge over the Missouri River at Omaha, Nebr. 

1889- 90, as engineer of erection of the Edge Moor Bridge Works in charge of 
all outside construction work and erection. 

1890- 1896, as assistant manager of the Edge Moore Bridge Works, having 
direct charge of the drafting department, the shop or fabricating department, 
and the erection department. 

1896-1900, as manager of the Edge Moor Bridge Works, with practically the 
same duties as just above stated. 

1900- 1901 as erecting engineer of the American Bridge Co. 

1901- 1906 as chief engineer of the American Bridge Co. of New York, hav¬ 
ing charge of all outside erection and construction work. 

1906 to the present time have been engaged in practice as consulting en¬ 
gineer on large bridge work and steel construction work, and as president of 
the Seaboard Construction Co. 

Mr. Sterrett. Have you had any experience in the manufacturing and 
erection of lock gates similar to those constructed for the Panama Canal? 

Mr. Mitchell. No; particularly as no lock gates comparable to the Panama 
Canal gates have previously been built. 

Mr. Sterrett. Were you asked to prepare an estimate by the McClintic- 
Marshall Construction Co. of what you thought the erection of the Panama 
Canal lock gates ought to have cost? 

Mr. Mitchell. Yes; I was asked to prepare an estimate of what, in my 
opinion, should be the cost of erection of the lock gates for the Panama 
Canal in a letter from the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. dated August 
29, 1914, and also in a letter dated September 9, 1914. 

Mr. Sterrett. Have you those letters with you? 

Mr. Mitchell. I have, and I submit them herewith. 

(The letter from McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. to Mr. S. P. Mitchell 
dated Aug. 29, 1914, was made Exhibit No. 1—Mitchell.) 

(The letter from McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. to Mr. S. P. Mitchell, 
dated Sept. 9, 1914, was made Exhibit No. 2—Mitchell.) 

Mr. Sterrett. Did you have a copy of Circular No. 576 and the plans that 
were submitted to bidders to prepare estimates originally, when you made 
your estimate? 

Mr. Mitchell. Yes; I did. 

Mr. Sterrett. Did you prepare your estimate on a basis of what was called 
for in circular No. 576 and the plans? 

Mr. Mitchell. I prepared my estimate on the basis of the plans and specifi¬ 
cations submitted, with the understanding that the character of work re¬ 
quired was to be of the quality of high-grade structural, bridge, or ship work, 
taking into consideration the requirement that the work was to be made 
water-tight. 

In preparing my estimate—and as stated in my letter of September 16. 1914 
submitting the estimate to you—I endeavored to look upon the matter from the 
point of view as though the estimate were to be used for the purpose of bidding- 
on the work. 

Mr. Sterrett. Were you furnished by the Contractor the scale of wages that 
was paid for labor at the time the canal gates were erected; and if so whnt 
were those rates? 

Mr. Mitchell. I was furnished with a statement from the Contractor as to 
the wages paid during the construction of the lock gates, which information 
was as follows: 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


239 


Bridgemen taken from the United States, 60 to 65 cents per hour, and apply¬ 
ing to from 500 to 600 men, and for colored labor, wages ranging from 16 to 40 
cents per hour and averaging 25 cents per hour, applying to about 4,000 men. 

Mr. Sterrett. Did you consider, in preparing your estimate, the possible 
inefficiency of labor in a tropical climate? 

Mr. Mitchell. I took this matter into consideration and tried to cover it in 
preparing my estimate. 

Mr. Sterrett. What experience have you had in handling the erection of large 
steel structures and bridges in tropical climates? 

Mr. Mitchell. During the time that I was chief engineer of the American 
Bridge Co., of New York, and coming under my direct charge, we had construc¬ 
tion work going on in Yucatan, Mexico, Peru, and a large number of viaducts on 
the Uganda Railway Co. in British East Africa. 

Mr. Sterrett. At the time you prepared your estimate, Mr. Mitchell, did you 
have any knowledge of the original estimate made by the Contractor at the 
time he bid on the work, or of the actual cost of the work, or any knowledge 
whatever in connection with the claim made by the McClintic-Marshall Con¬ 
struction Co. against the Isthmian Canal Commission for extra compensation 
in connection with the construction of the Panama Canal lock gates? 

Mr. Mitchell. At the time I prepared my estimate I had no knowledge what¬ 
soever of the estimate prepared by the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. used 
in their bid for the Panama Canal lock gates, nor any knowledge whatsoever as 
to the actual cost of performing the work; nor have I any knowledge whatso¬ 
ever as to the estimated and actual cost at the present time. I further had or 
have no knowledge as to the claim for extra compensation presented by the 
McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. to tlie Isthmian Canal Commission further 
than what I read in the newspapers at the time the claim was presented. 

Mr. Sterrett. That is, Mr. Mitchell, you have no knowledge at the present 
time or had at any other time as to what the Contractor claims the erection 
should have cost? 

Mr. Mitchell. I never had or have any such knowledge. 

Mr. Sterrett. When did you submit your estimate in accordance with the 
request of the Contractor? 

Mr. Mitchell. My estimate was submitted with my letter dated September 
16, 1914. 

Mr. Sterrett. Have you a copy of the estimate and your letter with you? 

Mr. Mitchell. I have, and submit it herewith. 

(The letter of Sept. 16, 1914, from Mr. Mitchell to McClintic-Marshall Con¬ 
struction Co. and the estimate attached was marked “ Exhibit No. 3—Mitchell.”) 

Mr. Sterrett. Can you certify that the copy of the estimate which is being 
submitted as Exhibit* No. 3 of your testimony is correct with your original 
copy which you prepared and on which the total amount of your estimate 

amounts to $2,684,200. ^ 

Mr. Mitchell. I have compared copy of estimate designated as Exhibit No. 
3 with the original file copy of my estimate and will verify the estimate desig¬ 
nated as Exhibit No. 3 as being a true and exact copy of the estimate prepared 
by me and now on file in my office. 

* Mr Sterrett. On sheet 2 of your estimate, Mr. Mitchell, you have an item 
of field expense amounting to $150,000, in which you state includes superin¬ 
tendence, clerical force, watchmen, and undistributed labor. What do you 
mean by’this item of “field expense”? 

Mr. Mitchell. This item of field expense is intended to cover the wages of 
superintendents, foremen, office force, watchmen, machinists, repairmen, and 
General labor which is always required on large construction work and not 
properly chargeable to any of the fixed distributive items, such as erecting 
gates, bolting up, reaming, riveting, calking, etc. , . , 

Mr Sterrett. In the total cost you state, “Exclusive of general adminis¬ 
trative expense.” What was your reason for not including “ general adminis¬ 
trative expense”? Was it because you were told that in the case of the Con¬ 
tractor this charge was taken care of in connection with shop labor and there 

was no charge against fieldwork? .. ,. . 

Mr. Mitchell. This was the information given me at the time the estimate 
was prepared, consequently the general administrative expense was not in¬ 
cluded in my estimate of the field cost. 

Mr. Sterrett. During the construction of the lock gates on the Isthmus by 
the Contractor had you any direct knowledge either then or since as to the 
conditions under which the Contractor was required to work that might 
possibly be contrary to the plans and specifications? 


240 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


Mr. Mitchell. I had no such knowledge. 

Mr. Sterrett. What would be your opinion, Mr. Mitchell, in connection 
with the cost and the time and the riveting of three gates if the holes in the 
material in the shops were punched so small that it had to be assembled in 
the field before reaming with five-eighths-inch bolts, which the Contractor 
claims was required of him contrary to the specifications, as the specifications 
stated all material shall be punched one-eighth inch less than the size of the 
rivet used, understanding that the rivets used were seven-eighths inch, 1 inch, 
and 1 £ inch. 

Mr. Mitchell. In my opinion, the requirement that the steelwork be as¬ 
sembled with five-eighths-inch bolts before reaming would very materially add 
to the cost of assembling, reaming, and riveting, and also very much increase 
the time required for doing this work. 

As I understand the situation the parts were assembled and first bolted up 
with five-eighths-inch-diameter bolts, and the holes were then reamed to full 
size required for seven-eighths-inch, 1 -inch, and l|-inch diameter rivets, as the 
case might be. 

I do not consider that five-eighths-inch diameter bolts would have sufficient 
strength to draw the parts tightly together, and hold them in that position, as 
bolts of this size would stretch and allow the parts to spring apart, the result 
being that when the holes w r ere reamed chips and borings would get in between 
the parts and prevent them frofn being tightly drawn together later on with 
larger bolts. 

In order to secure tight rivets, it is of the very greatest importance that 
the parts to be riveted be tightly drawn together and held until the rivets are 
driven, and I do not believe this could be accomplished successfully with the 
five-eighths-inch diameter bolts. 

Mr. Sterrett. In article 121 of the specifications, Circular 567, it states 
under the requirements for bolting up: “ In the field erection the separate 
parts shall be tightly bolted together, using bolts in practically all of the holes, 
and the rivet and bolt holes shall then be reamed out to their full size.” Do 
you consider that requirement practicabe? 

Mr. Mitchell. If practically all the holes were filled with bolts at one time, 
there would be no open holes left for reaming; consequently I do not see how 
it would be really practicable to carry out this requirement. The common 
practice in this particular is to fill about 50 per cent of the holes with fitting-up 
bolts. 

The estimate submitted by Mr. Mitchell was as follows: 

• . i 

Estimate of erection for lock (jates, Panama Canal, Sept. 16, 1194. 

• LABOR ITEMS. 

Net labor cost. 


Yard labor- $46,800 

Erection bridges, including erecting, removing, and moving same_ 15, 400 

Temporary supports_;_ 32, 200 

Erecting gates, including frame and skin plates_ 312, 000 

Bolting up before reaming and rebolting for riveting_ 260, 000 

Reaming- 208, 000 

Riveting- 458, 400 

Caulking- 81,600 

Grinding end plates and setting end reaction castings, including 

drilling and bolting_‘_ 64 , 400 

Setting and babbitting nickel steel bearing plates_ 58* 000 

Placing pintles and yokes and setting leaves on pintles_ 46,’ 000 

Placing wooden sills and fenders_ 5 ’ 300 

Placing concrete in bottom of gates_ 4 ? 500 

Placing piping, etc., for pumping system_ 13 ’ 800 

Placing sidewalks and railings_ s’ 200 

Placing manhole covers and doors_ ip’ 600 

Cleaning gates and applying two coats red-lead paint on outside only_ 65,’ 000 

Field expense, including superintendence, clerical force, watchmen, 
and undistributed labor_ 150 , 000 


Total labor cost_l s 840, 200 

Total weight of gates, 58,170 tons, at $31.64 per ton. 




















McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 241 

EXPENSE ITEMS. 

Field expense, including general items of expense in the field_ $75, 000 

Transportation of men and equipment_ 70, 000 

Power (furnished free). 

Erection materials, including erection bridges, bolts, and other items 

_ of material not included in plant_ 160, 000 

Use and depreciation of erection plant_ 147 j 000 

Insurance_ 92 ’ 000 

Contingencies- 300,’ 000 


Total expense_ 844 , 000 


Total labor cost, from sheets Nos. 1 and 2 (pp. 262 and 263 of this 

report)- 1,840,200 

Total expense, from sheet No. 3 (pp. 263 and 264 of this report)_ 844, 000 


Total cost, exclusive of general administrative expense_ 2, 684, 200 

Total weight of gates, 58,170 tons, one-half $46.15 per ton. 


Under labor items in the above estimate, $150,000 is specified for 
field expenses, which are stated to include expenses of superintend¬ 
ence, clerical force, watchmen, and undistributed labor. This class 
of expenses corresponds to the expenses in special No. 21, salaries, 
and Dock No. 41 on blue print showing labor cost of erection at the 
Isthmus, volume 26 of the evidence. The proportion of the labor 
expenses incurred on the Isthmus under special No. 21, salaries, Dock 
No. 41, and distributed to the various items on the blue print referred 
to above are shown in the table below: 



Amount. 

Per cent. 

Per ton. 

Gatun (25,498 tons): 

Distribution... 

$1,086,201.47 
166,043.95 
116,714.62 
4,618.56 

79.0782 
12.0884 
8.4971 
.3363 

$42.599 
6.512 
4.577 
.181 

Special No. 21. 

Salaries. 

Dock No. 41. 

Pedro Miguel (14,924 tons): 

Distribution .. . 

1,373,578.60 


53.869 

700,122.06 
108,257.43 
74,648.88 
2,988.48 

79.0191 
12.2184 
8.4252 
.3373 

46.912 
7.253 
5.002 
.200 

Special No. 21. 

Salaries . 

Dock No. 41. 

Miraflores (17,752 tons): 

Distribution.. . 

886,016.85 


59.367 

689.989.48 

141.402.49 
76,805.32 

3,056.40 

75. 7188 
15.5173 
8.4285 
.3354 

38.868 
7.965 
4.326 
.172 

Special No. 21. 

Salaries . 

Dock No. 41. 


911,253.69 


51.331 


The table below shows the totals of special No. 21, salaries, and 
Dock No. 41 at each lock, and the total normal and total excess 
expenses at each lock for these items under contractor’s method of 
stating his claim: 



Total ex¬ 
penditure. 

Normal. 

Excess. 

Gatun..... 

$287,375.00 

185,893.00 

221,263.00 

$198,317.49 
117,540.14 
144,794.51 

$89,057.51 
68,352.86 
76,468.49 

Ppdrn Mimel . .....-_...... 

M iraflnrps . 

Total . 

694,531.00 

460,652.14 

233,878.86 



29249°—H. Doc. 906, 64-1-16 
























































242 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


To get these figures, we apply the following percentages: 63.23 per 
cent—normal at Pedro Miguel, 36.77 per cent excess at Pedro Miguel; 
69.01 per cent—normal at Gatun, 30.99 per cent excess at Gatun; 65.44 
per cent—normal at Miraflores, 34.56 per cent excess at Miraflores. 

The difference between the admitted normal expenses carried 
under special 21, salaries and Dock 41 in the Contractor’s distribu¬ 
tion of cost, and the same item of field expenses carried in Mr. 
Mitchell’s estimate, is $310,352. Mr. Mitchell’s estimate for labor 
items should therefore be increased by $310,352 in this item. 

The proportion of this $310,352 that should be applied to Mira¬ 
flores is $89,215. Eighty-nine thousand two hundred and fifteen dol¬ 
lars divided by 17,752 would give $5.02 a ton, which should be added 
to $31.64, the total of Mr. Mitchell’s estimate, making the tonnage 
price for labor at Miraflores $36.66 on the basis of Mr. Mitchell’s 
estimate after being increased. This would be equivalent to an in¬ 
crease in the assumed normal of the Contractor at Miraflores of 
$3.07. The normal price per ton for transportation, liability, and 
general expenses should be increased proportionately. 

Under the method shown for obtaining the normal cost per ton 
for transportation, liability, and general expenses shown on page 
255, the normal cost for such at a labor cost of $36.66 would be 
$4.81. The Contractor’s normal cost at Miraflores has been in¬ 
creased from $33.59 to $36.66, or by 9 per cent. Nine per cent of 
$4.81 should therefore be added to increase the normal general ex¬ 
penses in proportion to the increase in the normal labor expenses. 
When this is added, it will give a normal cost per ton at Miraflores 
for labor and general expenses of $41.90. 

We should add to this normal 10 per cent to obtain the normal cost 
per ton at Pedro Miguel and Gatun. 

The first table below gives the actual cost per ton at the three 
lock sites, the normal cost per ton at the three lock sites, and the 
excess cost per ton at the three lock sites. The second table gives 
the total actual expenditures at the actual cost per ton at the three 
lock sites, the total normal expenditures at the normal cost per ton 
at the three lock sites, and the total excess expenditures at the excess 
cost per ton at the three lock sites. 


Table No. 1.— Cost per ton. 



Actual. 

Normal. 

Excess. 

Gatun.. 

$60.57 

66.11 

58.07 

$46.09 

46.09 

41.90 

$14 48 

Pedro Miguel. 

20.’02 

1 A 17 

Miraflores. 


ID. 1 / 


Table No. 2. 



Actual ex¬ 
penditure at 
actual cost 
per ton. 

Normal ex¬ 
penditure at 
normal cost 
per ton. 

Excess ex¬ 
penditure 
at excess 
cost per 
ton. 

Gatun. 

$1,544,413.86 
986,625.64 
1,030,858.64 

$1,175,202.82 
687 847.16 

$369,211.04 
298,778.48 
287,049.84 

Pedro Miguel. 

Miraflores. 

743 808.80 



Total. 

3,561,898.14 


955,039.36 


2,606,858.78 

























McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


243 


If Mr. Mitchell’s estimate, increased as shown above, should be 
adopted as the proper normal it would have the effect of reducing the 
claim of the Contractor, as finally revised, from $1,218,475 to $955,- 
039.36, or a total reduction of $263,435.64. (See p. 254 of this report 
for claim 6 of the Contractor, as revised by him.) Under the method 
of stating the claim on the basis of the Contractor, as modified on 
pages 255 and 256 of this report, his claim would be for $1,197,682.54, 
and under the estimate of Mr. Mitchell, when increased as* above, it 
would be for $955,039.36. This increase in the estimate of Mr. 
Mitchell, if his estimate as increased is taken as a normal, would 
have the effect of reducing the claim $242,643.18 below the last 
figure. 

The excess per ton claimed by the Contractor for bolting up at 
Miraflores is $3.27. The excess claimed for reaming is 74 cents a ton. 
This makes a total, in round numbers, of $4 a ton. The percentage 
of excess at Miraflores, under the Contractor’s original claim, is 34.56 
per cent; the percentage at Pedro Miguel is 36.77 per cent; and the 
percentage of excess at Gatun is 30.99 per cent. The amount of 
excess per ton that should apply at Pedro Miguel is found by multi¬ 
plying the excess per ton at Miraflores by the percentage of excess 
per ton at Pedro Miguel and dividing the product by the percentage 
of excess at Miraflores. This would give $4.28 a ton to be applied 
as the excess for bolting up and reaming at Pedro Miguel. The same 
process at Gatun would give the excess per ton to be applied at Gatun 
as $3.58. There were 1,858.4 tons in the 54-foot 8-inch leaves at 
Gatun. This multiplied by $3.58 would give $6,653.07 as the excess 
for bolting up and reaming these leaves at Gatun. There were 1,852.2 
tons in the 54-foot 8-inch leaves at Pedro Miguel. This multiplied 
by $4.28 would give the amount of excess to be applied on these leaves 
at Pedro Miguel. If the $955,039.36 is to be taken as the amount of 
the excess above the normal it would equal 78.3 per cent of the claim 
of the Contractor as finally revised. The amount of excess at Gatun 
and Pedro Miguel on the 54-foot 8-inch leaves for bolting up and 
reaming is found by taking 78.3 per cent of the excess at Gatun and 
Pedro Miguel, found as above. This would give the excess to be 
deducted from $955,039.36 as $11,426.56; $11,426.56 deducted from 
$955,039.36 would leave $943,612.80 as the excess of the claim, taking 
the estimate of Mr. Mitchell, increased as above, as the normal, and 
working out the claim on the principles stated by the claimant in 
the original book of claims. 

If this should be taken as the minimum normal cost of erection, 
exclusive of equipment, it would amount to $45 a ton. This is found 
as follows: The total actual expenses, including the item of labor 
expense and the item of transportation, liability, and general ex¬ 
penses, is $3,561,898. Deduct from this $943,612.80, excess, and it 
will leave $2,618,285.20 as the total normal expense for these items. 
This divided by 58,174 would give $45 per ton as the normal, exclu¬ 
sive of equipment. 

Mr. J. W. Wright, who was formerly superintendent for the 
McClintic-Marshall Construction Co., when the question of erection 
of dock gates came up, claimed that they could be erected more 
economically than similar gates could be erected by a contractor, in 
so far as the cost to the Panama Canal is concerned. (See testimony 


244 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


of Mr. Hinman, vol. 36, p. 3.) His estimate for the erection of the 
dock gates is $41.85 a ton. 

Mr. Childers, who had been connected with the lock gates as one 
of the employees of the Contractor during the erection of the gates 
and was supposed to be familiar with the cost of erecting the lock 
gates, submitted an informal price of $58 per ton for erecting the 
dock gates. 

Mr. Hinman, in his testimony, page 3, estimates, based on the 
labor-cost estimate by Mr. Wright and upon Mr. Faure’s cost sheets, 
that the dock gates would be completed for about $70 per ton, in¬ 
cluding inspection, freight, transportation, and power. 

Mr. Wright thinks that if he had charge like he had at the lock 
gates that he could have put them up at a labor cost of from $25 to 
$30 per ton. (See pp. 16 and 17 of his testimony, vol. 36.) This esti¬ 
mate of Mr. Wright, however, must be considered in connection with 
the former estimate of $41.85 per ton for labor and also in connection 
with the fact that the gates are actually costing to erect them, for 
labor, almost 25 per cent more than this estimate. 

The total estimated cost of the lock gates made by Mr. Goldmark 
was between $6,500,000 and $7,000,000. (See his testimony, vol. 8, 
pp. 243 to 245.) 

In view of the many exceptional conditions effecting the erection 
of the lock gates, such as the necessity of organizing and controlling 
a large force for the purpose of erecting the gates in a tropical 
climate, and the fact that it was practically a new class of work and 
thivt the laborers and employees would necessarily be inexperienced in 
that class of work in the beginning, it is not believed from all the 
testimony that your committee would be justified in fixing a normal 
cost of erection as a basis for examining the claim in the way in 
which it has been stated by the Contractor at less than $45 a ton 
as a whole, or $41.90 at Miraflores and $46.09 at Pedro Miguel and 
Gatun. (See p. 266 of this report.) 

These prices per ton will be taken as the ones best supported by the 
evidence and as the extreme minimums which your committee feels 
would be justified. 

The various contentions made by the Contractor as affecting the 
cost of the work, and his specific claims as to the increased cost stated 
on page 75 of the original book of claims will now be considered. 

Claim A. —Condition of yards and tracks, Miraflores, $6,753. 

The method adopted by the Contractor for placing a money value 
on the various claims that are insisted upon in connection with the 
erection at the isthmus is shown on page 253 of this report, which 
sets out the way in which the normal at Miraflores is arrived at. The 
claim stated above is considered, together with the claim for water in 
lock chambers, by the Contractor on pages 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 
and 46 of the original claim. The brief of the Contractor, pages 91 
to 101, inclusive, gives a reference to the testimony that has been sub¬ 
mitted in connection with this claim, and it has been submitted in 
support of the following contention, viz (see p. 39 of the claim) : 

Third. That the Commission failed to furnish, in accordance with the terms 
of the contract, sufficient and suitable unoccupied storage grounds on the 
isthmus for the material of the Contractor. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


245 


Paragraph 115 of the specifications provides that— 

115. For the storage of material the Commission will furnish the Contractor, 
free of charge, suitable unoccupied lands convenient to the several lock sites, 
properly graded and provided with sufficient railroad tracks of 5-foot gauge. 
It will also, at its own expense, construct and maintain a railroad track close 
to one of the side walls of the locks, and, wherever feasible, along the whole or 
a part of the other wall. It will also furnish free all necessary switching serv¬ 
ice from the storage grounds to the different gate sites and provide the Con¬ 
tractor for use on the work with a reasonable number of flat cars of 5-foot 
gauge without charge for same. 

Paragraph 118 of the specifications provides that— 

118. Before beginning erection, the Contractor shall submit in duplicate for 
approval a detailed description with sketches of the method of erection pro¬ 
posed. No erection shall be done until the chief engineer or his authorized 
representatives has approved the method in writing. 

These provisions in the specifications were made a part of the con¬ 
tract. (See Art. V of the contract.) 

Article 2 of the original contract provided the dates for beginning 
and completing the erection of the gates. It also contained this pro¬ 
vision : 

Provided, That any delay caused by the Commission in the manufacture, ship¬ 
ment, delivery, or erection of any gate and the fixed parts for same covered by 
this contract shall be added to the period agreed upon for the erection of such 
gate and fixed parts; the date arrived at by such addition shall be the date for 
completing the erection of such gate and fixed parts, and the rights of the par¬ 
ties hereto shall be determined precisely as though the date thus fixed was the 
date originally agreed upon: And provided further, That any delay caused by 
the Commission in the manufacture, shipment, or delivery of any material for 
the spare parts covered by this contract shall be added to the period agreed 
upon for the delivery of such material for spare parts; the date arrived at by 
such addition shall be the date for completing the delivery of such material 
for spare parts, and the rights of the parties hereto shall be determined pre¬ 
cisely as though the date thus fixed was the date originally agreed upon. 

If any gate and the fixed parts for same are not completely erected on or be¬ 
fore the date fixed as above for their erection, one-tenth of 1 per cent of the 
contract price of such gate and fixed parts shall be deducted for each day’s 
delay as liquidated damages for the delay until satisfactory erection or per¬ 
formance shall have been made or until such time as the Commission may 
otherwise reasonably complete the erection of such gate and fixed parts for 
same, and if any material for the spare parts is not delivered on or before the 
date fixed as above for its delivery, one-tenth of 1 per cent of the contract 
price of such material for spare parts shall be deducted for each day’s delay, 
as liquidated damages for the delay, until satisfactory delivery or performance 
shall have been made: Provided, however, That delays caused by strikes, acts 
of God, or public enemies, to the extent to which the same, in the judgment of 
the Commission, may justify the delay, shall not be charged against the Con¬ 
tractor hereunder. 

It is further understood, covenanted, and agreed that the Commission may 
delay the commencement of the erection of any or all of the gates and fixed 
parts for the reason that it has not completed the masonry or the fixed iron¬ 
work, or for any other reason it may deem sufficient to justify such action, and 
if at any time the Commission shall deem it necessary so to do, it may suspend 
the work of erection on any or all of the gates and fixed parts covered by this 
contract, in which case the Contractor shall, without expense to the Commis¬ 
sion, properly cover over, secure, and protect such of the work as may be liable 
to sustain injury from the weather or otherwise. The Commission may also 
direct the order in which the different gates and fixed parts in a given lock 
shall be erected, and it may require that any gate and the fixed parts necessary 
for same in any twin flight of locks shall be completely erected on or before a 
date fixed herein for the erection of any other gate in such twin flight of locks, 
and in such case the provisions of this contract relative to liquidated damages 


246 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


for delay shall subsist, take effect, and be enforceable in the same manner 
and to the same extent as if the date thus fixed was originally specified herein: 
Provided, That in all such cases the Contractor shall be granted an extension 
of time within which to complete the erection of any or all gates so delayed in 
erection, equal to the period of any delay caused by any such delays in the com¬ 
mencement of erection, suspension of work, or change of dates, but he shall 
not be entitled to any payment as additional compensation or as damages on 
account of any such suspension of work, delay in commencement of erection, 
or change in time or order of erection of gates. 

No specific allowance for additional time was made under the above 
provision until the supplemental contract, dated May 20, 1913, was 
entered into. This supplemental contract undertook to take up the 
question of allowance for additional time, change in the dates, and 
the order in which the gates should be completed. For easy reference 
it is quoted below : 


[W. O. 23444—supplemental, Z. R. 4318-A.] 

This contract, entered into this 20th day of May, 1913, between the Isthmian 
Canal Commission, hereinafter called the Commission, and the McClintic-Mar- 
sliall Construction Co., of Pittsburgh, Pa., a corporation organized and existing 
under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, hereinafter called the Contractor, 
supplemental to a contract entered into by and between the same parties under 
date of June 21, 1910, covering the furnishing of material and the erection of 
the lock gates for the Panama Canal, under W. O. 23444, and also to the 
supplemental contract modifying the conditions in regard to payments entered 
into under date of January 14, 1913, witnesseth: 

Whereas the original contract provides for the completion of the gates for 
the locks of the Panama Canal on various dates ranging from November 1, 
1911, to June 1, 1913; and 

Whereas the Contractor has failed to complete the lock gates in accordance 
with the dates fixed for their completion in the original contract; and 

Whereas the original contract provides that for delays caused by the Com¬ 
mission and by strikes, acts of God, or public enemies additional time shall be 
allowed for such delays; and 

Whereas the Contractor claims that it has been delayed in the completion 
of the various lock gates on account of causes for which it is excusable under 
the terms of the contract, so as to make the dates of completion of the various 
groups of gates as compared with the dates fixed by the original contract to be 
as set forth in the following table: 


Gates. 

Original con¬ 
tract dates for 
completion. 

Dates fixed 
for comple¬ 
tion if con¬ 
tractor’s 
claims were 
allowed. 

Gatun: 

Lower guard gates. 

Feb. 1,1913 

Dec. 9,1913 
Do 

All other west-side gates. 

..do.... 

All other east-side gates. 

..do... 

Do 

Pedro Miguel: 

Upper guard gates. 

Jan. 1,1912 

June 26,1912 
May 2,1912 
Do 

Lower guard gates. 

May 1,1912 

All other easLside gates. 

All other west-side gates. 


May 2,1913 

Mav 6,1913 
Apr. 8,1914 
Do 

Miraflores: 

Upper guard gates. 

Sept. 1,1912 
June 1,1913 

Lower guard gates. 

All other wesLside gates. 


All other east-side gates. 


Do. 




And 

Whereas the Contractor is entitled to a considerable part of the additional 
time it claims; and 




























McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


247 


Whereas the allowance of any considerable length of time for the completion 
of the lower guard gates at Gatun, the two lower guard gates at Miraflores, and 
certain other gates, the completion of which is necessary in order to permit any 
use of the canal, will delay the completion and opening of the canal long past 
the essential dates determined upon by the Commission and will otherwise 
greatly damage the Commission by interfering with the orderly prosecution of 
other work now under contract and hereafter to be done by the Commission; 
and 

Whereas it will be difficult to determine the exact time that should be allowed 
upon the claim made by the Contractor; and 

Whereas it is desired and is essential to the satisfactory prosecution of the 
work that the two lower guard gates at Gatun, lower lock, the two upper guard 
gates and the two lower guard gates, lower lock, at Miraflores shall be com¬ 
pleted at the earliest possible date, and a good many months earlier than the 
dates by which under the original contract the Contractor could be required to 
complete them were the claims for delay to be allowed as made; and 

Whereas the Contractor has now become liable for an uncertain amount of 
liquidated damages after the allowance of all the time to which it would be 
entitled under the original contract; and 

Whereas it would be greatly to the benefit of the Commission to agree upon 
dates for the completion of the various gates to be substituted for the dates 
given in the original contract; and 

Whereas the original contract provides for the assessment of liquidated dam¬ 
ages for failure to complete each gate on the date specified in the contract on 
the basis of one-tenth of 1 per cent of the contract price of such gates for each 
day of delay ; am. 

Whereas the failure to complete certain of the intermediate gates on the dates 
fixed in the contract would not result in any appreciable damages to the Com¬ 
mission ; and 

Whereas the failure to complete certain other gates upon the dates deter¬ 
mined in accordance with the terms of the contract would result in damages to 
the Commission far in excess of the rates specified in the contract; and 

Whereas there are certain well-defined groups of gates in each lock, and the 
completion of all gates in such groups at a specified time is necessary to enable 
proper use of certain portions of the canal; and 

Whereas the Contractor, as one of the considerations for entering into this 
agreement, has agreed to the insertion of a provision fixing the rate of liqui¬ 
dated damages for each day’s delay in completion of the various groups of gates 
at a higher rate than that specified in the original contract; and 

Whereas the Commission has had the free use of the erection bridges of the 
Contractor for transferring material to the center walls of the various locks 
and for crossing from one side of the locks to the other; and 

Whereas the use of such bridges in the past and their use in the future for 
such purposes has been and will continue to be a valuable consideration; and 
Whereas the Contractor, in view of the matters hereinafter set forth, and as 
a part of the consideration for this agreement, has agreed to make no charge 
for the use of its erecting bridges; and 
Whereas the Contractor has agreed to perform additional work on the ma¬ 
terial for the dock gates covered by contract between the same parties entered 
into under date of October 22, 1912, without additional compensation, and has 
further agreed to make certain other concessions in connection therewith. 

Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises and all other matters here¬ 
inafter set forth, it is mutually agreed that the original contract shall be and 
the same is hereby modified as follows; 

The Contractor shall complete the various gates at the earliest possible 
date and in any case on or before the dates set out in the table below so that 
they may be operated to the entire satisfaction of the chairman and chief 
engineer of the Commission, and so that it will not be necessary in the opinion 
of said chairman to keep the locks free from water, or free the locks from 
water after is has been turned in, for the purpose of completing the gates in 
every detail as required by the specifications. 

Gatun: 

Lower guard gates- 

Upper guard gates- 

All other west-side gates 
All other east-side gates 


.Tune 15,1913 
.Oct. 1,1913 
.Oct. 1,1913 
Jan. 1.1914 







248 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


Pedro Miguel: 

Upper guard gates_.Tune 1,1913 

Lower guard gates_June 1,1913 

All other east-side gates_Oct. 1,1913 

All other west-side gates_—Jan. 1,1914 

Miraflores: 

Upper guard gates_June 15,1913 

Lower guard gates_Sept. 1,1913 

All other west-side gates_Oct. 1,1913 

All other east-side gates_Mar. 1,1914 

All spare parts shall be delivered_Aug. 15,1913 


It is understood and agreed that time is of the very essence of this supple¬ 
mental agreement, and that failure to complete all of the gates in any group 
on or before the date specified above for such group will result in great damage to 
the Government and will prevent the completion and use of particular portions 
of the Panama Canal, and that it will be impossible to determine the amount 
of the actual damage which will be sustained by the Government on account 
of the nature of the work under construction, and that if any of the gates 
in any of the 12 groups of gates are not completely erected on or before the 
date fixed as above for their erection to the extent as above provided (that is, 
so that the gates may be operated to the entire satisfaction of the chairman 
and chief engineer, and so that it will be necessary in the opinion of said 
chairman and chief engineer to keep the locks free from water, or free the 
locks from water after it has been turned in, for the purpose of completing 
the gates in every detail), the damages which will be caused the Commission 
by reason of such failure shall be and are hereby liquidated and fixed in the 
sum of one-eighth of 1 per cent of the contract price of all gates in the group 
so delayed in erection for each day of delay in completion of all the gates in 
such group until they are completed to the extent as above provided, and that 
the amount of the damages thus determined may be deducted by the Commis¬ 
sion from any payments hereafter made to the Contractor, or may be collected 
from the Contractor or its sureties. 

It is further understood and agreed that the above provisions fixing new 
dates for completion of the various gates and providing a new basis for deter¬ 
mining the amount of liquidated damages due in case of delay in completion 
of the gates after such dates, shall constitute a full and final settlement of all 
and any claims on account of delays and of all and any such claims for dam¬ 
ages which have heretofore arisen or which may arise out of any delays which 
have occurred prior to the date of this contract, either on the part of the 
Contractor or on the part of the Commission, and that the determination of 
the causes of any delays in completion of any part of the work covered by 
this contract which may occur after the date hereof, and whether the Con¬ 
tractor is entitled to additional time within which to complete any part of the 
work shall be made in the manner and under the conditions provided in the 
original contract of June 21, 1910. 

The Contractor also agrees to deliver to the Commission either at Washing¬ 
ton, D. C., or on the Isthmus, at the option of the Commission, before final 
payment is made, all the tracings of the Contractor’s shop drawings for the 
lock gates. 

It is further understood and agreed that if, in the judgment of the chair¬ 
man and the chief engineer of the Commission, the Contractor should neglect 
or fail to so prosecute the work as to make it impossible for it, in the opinion 
of said chairman and said chief engineer, to complete any of the various parts 
of the work on any of the dates agreed upon, the Commission shall have the 
right to employ such labor and perform such services in connection with the 
prosecution of the work of the Contractor as the said chairman and chief 
engineer may deem necessary to secure completion by the dates fixed. The 
cost of such labor and services shall be charged to the Contractor and deducted 
from any payment to be made to it, or may be collected from the Contractor 
or its sureties. 

The exercise of this option by the Commission shall not be considered as in 
any way relieving the Contractor from its liability to respond in damages in 
case it is still unable with the aid of the Commission to complete any of 
the groups of gates upon the dates specified; nor shall it relieve the Contractor 
from any of the other provisions of the original contract as modified by this 
supplemental agreement. 











McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


249 


It is further understood and agreed that the concessions made by the Con¬ 
tractor in the agreement of even date herewith, supplemental to an agreement 
entered into by and between the Commission and the Contractor, under date 
of October 22, 1912, Washington Order No. 35042, for the furnishing of mate¬ 
rial and the erection of dock gates at Balboa shall be, and are hereby, made 
a part of the consideration for any concessions which may have been made by 
the Commission in this supplemental agreement. 

It is also understood and agreed that, as a part of the consideration moving 
to the Commission for the changes specified above, in the settlement under 
the contract between the same parties hereto, dated September 11, 1911 
(W. O. 28323), any and all delays in the delivery of the material, which, in 
the judgment of the chairman and chief engineer, or his authorized representa¬ 
tive, causes no damage or inconvenience to the Government when expressly 
waived by the chairman and chief engineer, or his authorized representative, 
shall be charged against the Contractor. 

Except as herein specifically modified, the original contract, Washington 
Order No. 23444, dated June 21, 1910, is modified by the supplemental contract 
of January 14, 1913, Washington Order No. 23444 (supplemental), shall re¬ 
main in full force and effect, and A. W. Mellon and R. I>. Mellon, as sureties 
on said original and supplemental agreements hereby specifically consent to 
the modification of the contract as herein set forth. 

In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this contract in tripli¬ 
cate as of the day and year first above written. 

Witness to signature: 

B. F. Hakuah, as to—- 

Isthmian Canal Commission. 

By F. C. Boggs, 

Major, Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army. 

McClintic Mar. Con. Company, 

By C. D. Marshall, As its President. 

Attest: 

N. S. Mitchell, [seal.] 

As its Secretary. 

In the presence of: 

A. E. Sexsmith. R. B. Mellon, [l. s.] 

A. E. Sexsmith. H. W. Mellon, [l. s.] 

I certify to the correctness of the facts. 

P. B. Clark, 

Acting Chief Clerk, Purchasing Department. 

Article 10 of the original contract provides as follows: 

Article X. The Contractor agrees to make no claim for compensation for any 
extra work, labor, or materials over and above that specified or called for in the 
contract, specifications, and plans, unless same shall have been agreed upon in 
writing by the parties to the contract before such work shall have been com¬ 
menced or the labor or materials furnished. 

Article 12 of the original contract provides as follows: 

Article XII. All questions relating to final inspection and acceptance of the 
materials and workmanship to be furnished hereunder, or the failure of such 
materials and workmanship to comply with the specifications, or to the causes 
and extent of delays in delivery or erection, shall be determined by the chief 
engineer of the Commission, or by any officer or deputy to whom the chief engi¬ 
neer may assign that duty, and such decision, when expressed in writing, shall 
be final. 

It has been considered by your committee that the act of June 24, 
1914, had the effect of waiving the enforcement of Article X of the 
original contract against the Contractor. 

Article XII of the contract must necessarily be construed in con¬ 
nection with the act of June 24, 1914, and the action of the Isthmian 
Canal Commission’s officers and employees under this provision of 
the contract viewed in the light of what is equitable, just, and fair. 


250 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


At the time the supplemental contract quoted above was made it 
was understood as constituting a final settlement of— 

All and any such claims for damages which have heretofore arisen or which 
may arise out of any delays which have occurred prior to the date of this con¬ 
tract, either on the part of the Contractor or on the part of the Commission, and 
that the determination of the causes of any delays in completion of any part of 
the work covered by this contract which may occur after the date hereof and 
whether the Contractor is entitled to additional time within which to complete 
any part of the work shall be made in the manner and under the conditions 
provided in the original contract of June 21, 1910. 

The entire subject of delays and the substitution of new dates for 
those under the original contract was considered by Mr. Henry Gold- 
mark, designing engineer, in a memorandum to Col. Hodges, and 
recommendation was made as to the amount of time the contractor 
was entitled to on account of the various claims that he had made for 
extension of time up to that time. (See p. 213 of Mr. Goldmark’s 
report, vol. 1 of the testimony; see also the testimony of Mr. Gold- 
mark, vol. 8, pp. 203 and 204, and the exhibits therein referred to.) 

One of the causes for which additional time was claimed, and 
which formed a part of the basis of the supplemental contract, was 
the claim that the Commission failed to supply storage grounds and 
back fill at the lock sites, and also interfered by trains and other 
operations with the Contractor’s work, and by allowing the lock 
chambers to become flooded. This claim for these causes, therefore, 
appears to have been included in the settlement as to delays effected 
by the supplemental contract. There was not, however, any attempt 
to determine in detail the damages or extra expenses which the 
Contractor had been put to by reason of these delays. The con¬ 
sideration moving to the Contractor in making the supplemental 
contract probably to some extent compensated him for the in¬ 
creased expenses and damages to which he was put on account of the 
delays and interferences due to lack of proper storage grounds; but 
whether or not this is so depends largely upon the question as to 
whether the Contractor was entitled to a greater allowance of time 
than was finally agreed to in the supplemental contract. 

It will be noted that in the supplemental contract the only thing 
that the Contractor was relieved from, practically, was the pro¬ 
vision in the contract for liquidated damages and the extent to 
which that provision could have been enforced against him in case 
a supplemental contract had not been entered into and the work had 
been completed under the original contract. 

The Contractor, under the supplemental agreement, became 
obligated to complete certain of the locks at an earlier date than he 
would have been required to complete them under the original con¬ 
tract after an allowance of the additional time to which he was en¬ 
titled to. As to certain other of the locks, if completion had been 
made under the original contract, he would have been subjected to 
considerable liquidated damages. If all of the additional time 
claimed by the Contractor at the time of making the supplemental 
contract had been allowed, and he had been charged one-tenth of 
1 per cent per day on the contract price for failure to complete the 
gates by the dates arrived at after allowing him all the time that he 
claimed, he would have been charged $312,516.50. 

It is not admitted, however, that the Contractor would have been 
entitled to all of the additional time that he claimed, and if only 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


251 


such time as he was entitled to under the claim made by him had 
been allowed it is probable that considerably more liquidated dam¬ 
ages would have been chargeable against him than shown on page 
276 of this report. Under the supplemental contract, certain of the 
gates that were essential to the use of the canal were completed 
earlier than their completion could have been required under the 
original contract. The substance of the agreement, therefore, was 
that the claimant was relieved of a large sum for liquidated dam¬ 
ages that he would have suffered if completion had been made 
under the terms of the original contract, and that the United States 
got the use of the completed locks at an earlier date than it could 
have gotten them under the original contract. 

The delays for which additional time was requested prior to the 
making of the supplemental contract were listed by the Contractor 
as follows: 


DELAYS DUE TO FOLLOWING CAUSES. 

1. Drawings and ordering material for water-tight frames. 

2. Change in skin of 77-foot leaves. 

3. Air-tight pump chamber, pumping system, and mitering devices. 

4. Further changes in manhole covers vertical hinge. Grove added for rubber. 

5. Delay in approving drawings for 66-foot and 87-foot leaves. 

6. Accident to steamship Dania in Baltimore. 

7a. Delay in shop through Moldegard loss. 

7b. Delay in field through Moldegard loss. 

8. Strike in Wheeling. 

9. Stevedores’ strike in Baltimore. 

10. Condition of tracks, storage yards, and back fill at Gatun. 

11. Same as 10 at Pedro Miguel. 

12. Same as 10 at Miraflores. 

13. Flooding of west chamber at Pedro Miguel. 

14. Changing anchorages at Gatun put in inaccurately by Commission. 

15. Power breakdown at Rankin. 

16. Masonry at Pedro Miguel and Miraflores not ready on contract time. 

The delays, exclusive of item 16, are then totaled on the blue print, 
and the totals for the items making allowance for overlap of indi¬ 
vidual delays are placed in one column and totals of delays on ac¬ 
count of masonry not being ready on contract time are placed in 
another column. (For complete details as to claim, see blue prints 
A and B, Exhibit 1, in the testimony of Col. Jervey, yol. 24. For 
recommendation on the claim made by Mr. Goldmark in detail, see 
exhibits marked A and B, Exhibits 141 and 142, vol. 31 of the evi¬ 
dence. Isthmian exhibits.) 

On January 27, 1913, Mr. Goldmark made a complete report to 
Col. Hodges on the claim of the Contractor for delays. (See pp. 213 
to 225 of Mr. Goldmark’s report, vol. 1 of the evidence.) Col. Hodges 
made the following report to the chairman and chief engineer on 
February 25, 1913, which is quoted below: . 

Inclosed are transmitted the papers in reference to the claim of the McClintic- 
Marshall Construction Co. for allowance for delay in the execution of the 
contract for the mitering lock gates. As a consequence of their claim the com¬ 
pany now asks, by its president’s letter of February 20, that a supplemental 
contract be entered into, embodying certain new dates of completion, and 

offering as consideration: ^ ^ _ . 

(1) To use their utmost resources to anticipate these dates of completion. 

(2) To make no charge for the use of their erecting bridges for transferring 
material to the center walls. 


252 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


(3 and 4) To do certain work on the Balboa Dock leaves which is not pro¬ 
vided for in the contract for these leaves and is, as shown by experience with 
the lock gates, very desirable. 

In addition, by another letter of February 1, 1913, from the chief engineer 
of the company, the offer is made to turn over to the Government at the con¬ 
clusion of the contract the tracings which were made for the lock gates and 
for the Balboa Dock gates. 

The items upon which the claim for delay is based are as follows: 

(1) Delay in settling upon a design for the manhole covers: 

The designs originally prepared by the Commission for the manhole covers 
were not so good as those which we now have. They would, however, have 
served their purpose. The suggestions for a change came originally from the 
New York Shipbuilding Co., supported by the McClintic-Marshall Construction 
Co., who were to prepare alternative plans and make a proposal to the Com¬ 
mission to make substitution at a reduced rate. The McClintic-Marshall Con¬ 
struction Co. took about two months to prepare the plans. These were altered 
and modified in the inspector's office in the United States and returned to the 
Contractors about six weeks later, the original suggestion having been made 
about July 24, 1910, and the plans given to the Contractor to make his offer 
on November 1, 1910. It was then found that the new design would cost more 
than the Commission’s design, and accordingly, on November 30, 1910, I 
directed adherence to the original design, which decision was cabled to the 
Washington office on December 3, 1910. The McClintic-Marshall Construction 
Co. urged the adoption of the revised plan, and in agreement with their views 
certain slight changes, involving the use of a rubber gasket and change in 
handle details, were made, but the structural frame was retained as per 
original plan. The company claims 114 days’ delay on this item. 

I do not doubt the statement that certain plates necessary for all the leaves 
were not ordered until the approval of these plans was obtained. During this 
time, however, the Contractors were preparing the shop drawings’ for the other 
parts of the gates. Drawings for a number of the parts, which are not affected 
by the water-tight manhole covers, were submitted for approval for the first 
time in December, 1910, even after the revised plans for the manhole covers 
were ready, as, for instance, the intercostals, the end plates, and the bent 
plates. The shop drawings for the water-tight frames were finally approved 
in Mr. Hammer’s office on December 27, 1910. 

The first of the Contractor’s shop drawings were approved on November 1, 
1910. It is safe to say that drawings for the parts involving the manhole 
covers would not have been approved before that date, and that, therefore, the 
utmost delay in this matter which can be chargeable to the Commission would 
be from November 1, 1910, to the final date of approval of these drawings, 
namely, December 27, 1910. Mr. Goldmark recommends an allowance of 50 
days’ delay on this item, covering the entire contract. This, I think, is fair. 

(2) The Contractor claims 7 days’ delay for change in shop drawings for 
sheathing plates for the 77-foot leaves. 

This change was made in order to make the Contractor’s drawings correspond 
with the general drawings prepared by the Commission. Mr. Hammer recom¬ 
mends no delay and I agree with him. 

(3) Change in details of pump chamber. 

The Contractors claim 23 days. The pumping system for the gates as origi¬ 
nally designed was changed and materially improved after letting the contract. 
This involved chiefly the shop drawings for the two bottom girders. The Con¬ 
tractors began work on the drawings for the pump chamber according to the 
original design on October 1 and were notified of the change on October 24, 
making 23 days’ delay in the preparation of these drawings. I do not believe 
that the entire work was delayed 23 days, by the fact that the detailed drawings 
of the two lowest girders could not be worked up for that time, but I think that 
the Contractor’s claim would probably stand on the facts as stated. 

(4) For delay on account of change of hinges for water-tight frames. This 
is independent of the claim made in item (1), ante. In view of the experience 
in the previous attempt to change the manhole covers the change in hinges was 
not ordered until the Contractor had stated specifically that they would make no 
claim for delay or extra charge. On that account the claim should not be 
allowed. 

(5) For delay in approval of the drawings for the 66-foot and 82-foot leaves, 
those being the lower service gates and the lower guard gates at Miraflores. 

There was, unquestionably, long delay in approving these drawings. The 
Contractors claimed, originally, “ at least 40 days’ delay on this item.” In their 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


253 


claim now submitted they ask 75 days’ delay. The Contractor states that the 
drawings for the 82-foot leaves were submitted for approval at various times 
between October 1, 1910, and April 28, 1911. Mr. Hammer’s report shows that 
they were approved on March 6 to 18, 1912, and that the mill orders for the 
structural material were issued on April 20, 1912. For the 66-foot leaves the 
Contractor reports that the drawings were submitted from September 30, 1910, 
to April 28, 1911. Mr. Hammer reports that they were approved from April 2 
to 9, 1912, with certain small exceptions. The mill orders were issued under 
date of June 4, 1912. 

The delay in the approval of these drawings was occasioned, probably, by the 
fact that the gates in question, according to the schedule, were the last to be 
finished, it not being known in Mr. Hammer’s office that the Miraflores guard 
gates would be needed at an early date. While the delay has resulted badly, it 
should be kept in mind that had the original contract dates been adhered to 
these gates would not have been needed in advance of the other gates, and the 
approval of the plans might safely have been kept to the last, although not for 
so long a time as it was actually held. Also, the delay in approval would have 
occasioned no embarrassment had not the steel mills been unable to fill the order 
promptly on account of press of business. I think, however, that we must con¬ 
fess judgment on this claim and allow the amount the Contractors now ask 
for, namely, 75 days. 

(6, 7A, 7B, and 8) The total amount claimed by the Contractor for these items 
as accumulative delay is 92 days, which covers the delay in the field caused by 
the loss of material on the steamship MoJdcgaard. 

We have a full and complete report from our inspector, showing material 
lost on the steamer, which sank in November, 1911. According to our rec¬ 
ords the material for 15 gates was involved. The Contractor claims delay 
on 20 gates. Replace shipment for all the material was not completed until 
April 20, 1912, when the last material started from Rankin. On these items 
combined a delay of 92 days is not excessive. 

(10, 11, 12, and 13) Conditions of tracks, storage yards, etc., at Gatun, 
Pedro Miguel, and Miraflores, and flooding of west chamber of Pedro Miguel 
Lock. 

Letters from Col. Sibert and Mr. Cole recommend allowance, for these various 
causes, of 30 days at Gatun and SO days at Pedro Miguel. No figure can be 
given as yet as to delay at Miraflores. I am not disposed to reckon this in at 
the present time. There was some interference with the Contractor’s work 
during the completion of the back fill of the upper lock, east wall, at Gatun, 
and they were cramped for storage space when they first started there. There 
was more extended interference at Pedro Miguel and time certainly lost by 
flooding the west chamber. The condition of the back fill was such that an 
accurate estimate in days could hardly be made at the time. The dates of the 
floods, however, were carefully recorded, and the delays incident thereto noted 
at the time. I see no reason to question the judgment of the local engineers, 
and their figures have been adopted in Mr. Goldmark’s tabulation. 

(14) Claims of 5 and 10 days’ delay at two gates at Gatun are stated to be 
due to faulty placing of anchorges by the Commission. 

I do not thing that the Contractor was delayed on this account. 

(15) Delay due to breakdown of power plant at Ranking. Seven days’ delay 
is claimed on this score by the Contractors, but it is not counted by them 
among the accumulative delays. The claim was passed upon at the time by 
Maj. Boggs and denied. 

(16) The Contractor claims long delay at Pedro Miguel and Miraflores, due 
to the fact that the masonry at these points was not ready on the dates set 
in the contract. The specifications prepared in this office provided that delays 
on account of noncompletion of masonry would be allowed only in case such 
noncompletion should delay the erection of the gates. The contract, however, as 
drawn in the Washington office, omits the qualification, and apparently, if con¬ 
strued narrowly, would allow a claim for delay if the masonry were not 
ready at contract time, even though the Contractor’s operations were not 
affected by this unreadiness. I do not think such a claim is reasonable, and the 
Contractor does not at present press it, the time not being included among the 
accumulative delays. 

It must be acknowledged that the masonry was not ready on the dates stated 
in the contract for its completion, but it was ready in all cases before the 
Contractors were prepared to begin operations. As the Contractors claim, 
and we allow, long delays affecting all the work from the very beginning of 


254 


McCLIN TIC-MARSHALI. CONSTRUCTION CO. 


the contract in item (1), we should certainly be entitled to set our dates for 
completing the masonry forward by this amount, since it affects the remainder 
of the contract. 

Attention is invited to the accompanying memorandum from Mr. Goldmark 
and especially to his Exhibit A, showing, in tabulated form, the delays which 
he recommends on the different items. It will be noted from his memorandum 
of February 21 that the delays which he would allow would still leave the gates 
at Gatun and Pedro Miguel far in arrears of liquidated damages, but would 
advance the completion of the gates at Miraflores, and the ultimate comple¬ 
tion of the work, somewhat beyond the dates which the Contractor now pro¬ 
poses for the completion of these works. 

It would be hard to place a monetary value upon the considerations offered 
by the Contractors as an offset against the liquidated damages. Under either 
estimate of the delays to be allowed the Contractor, the original contract dates 
would be materially advanced. If our estimates of the delays be correct, and 
if the contractor finish the work on the several gates on the dates now pro¬ 
posed for completion, they will, under the existing contract, suffer a severe 
loss in liquidated damages at Gatun, Pedro Miguel, and at the upper guard 
gates at Miraflores, but will finish the remaining work at Miraflores and the 
entire contract ahead of time. If the Contractor’s claim for delay be correct, 
and they finish as now proposed, they will lose in liquidated damages certain 
small sums on the upper guard gates at Gatun and on the Pedro Miguel work, 
but will be far ahead of time on the remainder of the work. 

It was understood by the Contractors early in the work that if they finished 
the whole contract within the date set for completion, which would, of course, 
be advanced by the amount of any allowable delay, they would not suffer in 
liquidated damages on account of not complying with the intermediate dates. 

It would be possible to urge as an offset against the delay occasioned by the 
Government the fact that we remitted to the Contractor the erection in the 
shops of much of the work which they would have had to erect there under the 
contract. It would be difficult to prove, however, how far this remission of 
shop erection advanced the erection of the work in the field. 

The contract as now drawn does not permit relieving the Contractor of liqui¬ 
dated damages for delays, simply because the latter have not affected the Commis¬ 
sion injuriously. It gives allowance for delays due to strikes, acts of God, or 
public enemies to the extent to which the same, in the judgment of the Commis¬ 
sion, may be justified, and increases the period of erection of the different parts 
of the work by the amount of any delay which may be caused by the Com¬ 
mission. 

The total amount of liquidated damages which the Contractor would have to 
pay under the original contract would probably be ruinous to them. They are 
unquestionably entitled to some delay, and the estimate given by Mr. Goldmark 
in Appendix A appears to me to be reasonable. They probably can not now 
complete the gates at dates earlier than those stated. To insist upon the 
earlier dates for Gatun and Pedro Miguel, given by our own estimate of the 
allowable delays, would not hasten the ultimate completion of the work. I 
recommend, therefore, the adoption of the dates proposed by the Contractor 
and the preparation of a supplemental agreement embodying these dates and 
the considerations which the contractors offer as an offset, also the changed 
clause as to liquidated damages. It would be well to include in this supple¬ 
mental agreement a clause providing for an increase in liquidated damages in 
case the contractors fail to complete the entire work at the time stated. 

It will undoubtedly be necessary to submit this supplemental agreement to 
the accounting officers of the Treasury prior to its execution. 

(See pp. 224 to 232 of Mr. Goldmark’s report, vol. 1 of the evidence.) 

It is clearly shown from these reports and the supplemental con¬ 
tract that the Contractor did not make any claim for additional time 
on account of the delays that were caused to him by reason of the 
severity of the inspection, nor for additional time to cover the delays 
that resulted from punching the holes smaller than required in the 
original specifications. If claims for these delays had been made, it 
is probable that the additional time to which the Contractor would 
have been entitled would have relieved him from a considerable por¬ 
tion of liquidated damages and would have given him such addi- 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


255 


tional time for completion of the work as would have placed the 
ultimate completion beyond the dates agreed upon in the supple¬ 
mental contract. 

The provision in the contract referred to by Col. Hodges, under 
No. 16 of the above report, relative to the masonry, is as follows: 

* * * and it is also understood, covenanted, and agreed that the failure 

of the Commission to furnish any material or service when the Contractor 
may be ready for the same, or its failure to have any of the foundations ready 
on the dates specified therefor, shall not make the Commission liable to any 
claim for damages on that account, but the time within which any gate and 
fixed parts for same are to be completed shall be extended an equivalent period 
of time to compensate for such delay. 

It is probable that under this provision of the contract the claim¬ 
ant would have been entitled to additional time equal to the period 
from the date the contract specified the foundations would be ready 
to the date they were ready, regardless of whether any actual delay 
was caused thereby or not. The time would have to be granted in 
order to avoid the payment of damages that might result from this 
delay. 

Under this supplemental contract no specific claim was made by 
the Contractor for the additional expense and damage that he suf¬ 
fered by reason of interference with the work by the Commission’s 
inspectors. He did not claim any additional time for delays that 
may have resulted from punching the holes smaller than required in 
the original contract or to cover unusual demands that may have 
been made by the inspectors of the Isthmian Canal Commission. 
Claims for damages and increased expenses incurred by reason of 
these causes were not specifically considered in this supplemental 
contract. On the other hand, it is also true that the damages to the 
Commission due to the dilatory methods of the Contractor and his 
interference with the work of the Commission, and his use of facili¬ 
ties in excess of those contemplated in the contract, were not specifi¬ 
cally considered and adjudicated. Later on in this report, in at¬ 
tempting to fix the responsibility for excess expenditures, these two 
elements, as they affected the expenditures under the contract, will 
be considered. 

The Contractor claims for delays, owing to condition of tracks, 
storage yards, and back fills at Gatun, 50 days on the two upper guard 
gates, 54-foot 8-inch leaves; 60 days on the two upper gates, 77-foot 
leaves; and 75 days each on all of the other leaves. He claimed at 
Pedro Miguel 40 days on the two upper guard gates, 54-foot 8-inch 
leaves; 60 days on the two upper gates, 79-foot leaves; 80 days on the 
two middle gates, 79-foot leaves; and 100 days each on all of the 
other leaves. He claimed at Miraflores 11 days’ delay on all leaves. 

Mr. Goldmark, in passing upon the claim for delays, recommended 
an allowance of 30 days on all leaves except the two middle gates, 
lower lock; two lower gates, lower lock: two lower guard gates, lower 
lock. He recommended an allowance of 50 days for all locks at Pedro 
Miguel, but made no recommendation for any allowance at Mira¬ 
flores. (See Isthmian Exhibit No. 141, in vol. 31 of the testimony.) 

In his testimony, volume 8, pages 83 to 100, inclusive, Mr. Gold- 
mark gives his recollection as to what storage grounds the Contractor 
had and how they were interfered with at the various locks by not 
having sufficient storage yards. In his testimony he states that he 


256 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


does not think that the 30 days’ extension of time allowed at Gatlin 
was sufficient. (See pp. 83 and 84 of this testimony.) He also states, 
page 86, in relation to the allowance at Gatun and at Pedro Miguel, 
that— 

I did not think at that time, and do not think now, that these allowances 
were sufficient to cover the delays caused by the failure to provide suitable 
storage yards and tracks, although, as I stated in my report, it is extremely 
difficult to estimate the exact amount. In my report I made no recommenda¬ 
tion. 

Mr. Goldmark’s attention was called to his statement in his report, 
page 31, in which he describes the storage yards that Mr. Jewel had 
agreed would be sufficient, and states that— 

It was intended to use the space available for storage, although in case the 
available space did not suffice the storage yards provided elsewhere were avail¬ 
able, and, in fact, at Gatun about 100 girders were for a long time stored at a 
lower level near the machine shops on the east side of the middle and lower 
locks. They were brought up to the upper lock when needed by switching en¬ 
gines furnished by the Commission. 

The use of the back fill as storage ground saved the Commission a large 
amount of money, as the Contractors handled almost all material by their self- 
propelling cranes, and required only a very small amount of switching to be 
furnished by the Commission. The method was, of course, a great advantage 
to the Contractor in saving time and rehandling. 

Col. Jervey gives his recollection as to the condition of the storage 
yards and grounds at Gatun in his testimony, volume 24, pages 2 to 
16, inclusive. On pages 2 and 3 he makes the following general 
statement: 

As I recall it, nothing had been done on the storage ground opposite the mid¬ 
dle or lower lock, that opposite the upper lock, where the construction work 
on the gates began, was only partially completed, and there was considerable 
trouble, inconvenience, and more or less delay, as I recall it, in getting the first 
shipment unloaded. There were, to the best of my recollection, certain modifica¬ 
tions made in this ground, either on a verbal agreement or on a written agree¬ 
ment, I can not state which. For instance, instead of having a double track 
along here [indicating], as shown on the blue print, I think that there is 
but one line of track, and certain additional tracks were provided either in 
the shape of short spurs or coming out from the longitudinal running track, 
and the Contractor was also permitted later on at least to use a track which was 
constructed for the towing locomotives on the side wall, and I think also at 
times on the middle wall of the upper lock. What the actual delay amounted to 
it would be very hard for me to judge. I had talked about that with the repre¬ 
sentatives of the lock-gate force, both with Mr. Goldmark and Mr. Guynn, and 
I gathered from Mr. Guynn particularly that the construction of the upper 
gates was considerably delayed by the fact that the storage grounds opposite 
the upper lock were not entirely ready at the time of the arrival of the first 
shipment of construction plant and material. So far as the other locks were 
concerned—that is, the middle and lower lock—as I recall it, the yards were 
ready either before or at the time when needed for the receipt of material and 
plant for those locks. There is one thing which, of course, was unavoidable 
where construction was being carried on by three separate and more or less 
independent organizations—the masonry work and the setting of the fixed steel 
in the contract was being done under my immediate supervision; the gate erec¬ 
tion was being carried on by another department, of which Mr. Henry Gold- 
mark was the immediate representative, and of which Col. (now Gen.) H. F. 
Hodges was the head. In addition the installation of the machinery was also 
being officially carried on under Mr. Edward Schildhauer, who also reported to 
Gen. Hodges. These three departments were all making more or less use of at 
least part of the various tracks alongside of the lock, and as a result there was 
at times interference. I do not recall now any written complaint as to this 
but where there was such interference it was usually straightened out ver¬ 
bally by the representatives of the several departments on the ground Due 
to the heavy rains at Gatun it was, of course, difficult to keep up the tracks 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


257 


which were subjected to such heavy traffic, and as a result there were at times 
delays due to derailments, but I would not regard such delays as exceptionally 
large or more than should be expected on a construction job. As a matter of 
fact, I think for construction tracks those connected with the lock work at 
Gatun were kept in very fair shape. 

Col. Jervey states that there was some interference by the dirt 
trains of the Commission using the track, but does not know whether 
there was a written complaint about it or not. 

In relation to the contention of the Contractor that he was re¬ 
quired to unload his cars with undue haste, Col. Jervey states (see pp. 
5 and 6 of this testimony) : 

So far as the material assigned to me was concerned, there was always great 
urgency in getting the cars unloaded. The Atlantic division was several times 
reported to the chairman for holding cars. This applied, as I recall it, more 
frequently to box cars than to flat cars, but I do remember occasions when the 
Atlantic division was also reported for holding flat cars. When a loaded ves¬ 
sel came in there was usually a roundup over the entire Isthmus in order to 
get all available cars, and those which had been held under load for even a 
short time were usually reported as being held loaded. I think that the chief 
engineer issued several circulars calling attention to the necessity of promptly 
unloading cars, so I presume that these notices went to the McClintic-Marshall 
Construction Co. as well as to the various divisions engineers. I can not, though, 
give any direct testimony as to whether the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. 
found it necessary to use undue haste in unloading the cars. 


In connection with the reason as to why the lower gates were 
erected at Gatun ■‘with the mitre ends pointing south instead of north, 
Col. Jervey states (see pp. G and 7 of his testimony) : 


As I recall it, this method of erection was determined upon by Mr. Jewell, 
who was then representative of the McClintic-Marshall Co. on the Isthmus, in 
order that the lower operating gates and the lower guard gates might be erected 
without changing the position of the Contractor’s construction bridge. I am 
positive that Mr. Jewell made the original suggestion for this method of erec¬ 
tion. The reasons for this suggestion I should say were two—first, the ad¬ 
vantage of erecting two sets of gates with a bridge in one position, which 
would be an advantage from the Contractor’s standpoint, and the advantage 
from the standpoint of the Atlantic division of only one spur track leading into 
the construction bridge. It is also probable that the question of the danger of 
the tracks laid to the construction bridge sliding into the excavation at the 
north end of the locks was considered. I do not, however, definitely now recall 
any conference with Mr. Jewell on that particular point. There was un¬ 
doubtedly some additional expense involved to the Contractor in moving the 
guard gates to their proper position after their erection. This would have 
been partially compensated for by the fact that both guard gates and operating 
gates were elected from one position of the construction bridge and that the 
erection of the two sets of gates could go on simultaneously. 


In regard to whether it was originally contemplated to use the 
large, level plateau on the west side of the Gatun Locks for the gen- 
erat storage yards, Col. Jervey states (see p. 8 of his testimony) : 

Yes- it is a fact that it was originally contemplated to use a large, level 
plateau on the west side of the Gatun Locks for the general storage ground. 
A large amount of the excavation from the locks was dumped at this locality 
in order to form the site for the storage ground, and several miles of track 
with a number of spurs were laid on this area. It was used as a storage ground 
bv myself for storing the fixed steel connected with the locks and was later 
used as a storage ground by the first division, which reported to Col. Hodges, 
for various items pertaining to the lock-operating machinery. That ground 
in whole or at least in part would have been available or could have been made 
available for storage for gate material if it had been desired for that purpose. 

On page 12 of his testimony Col. Jervey states, in relation to the 
amount of time that should have been allowed at Gatun to cover de- 
29249°—H. Doc. 90G, G4-1-17 



258 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


lays clue to the fact that proper storage grounds had not been fur¬ 
nished, that— 

I thought at the time, as well as I recall it, that three or four months was 
probably the measure of contract time that should be allowed. 

The brief of the testimony made by the Contractor in relation to 
whether or not proper storage grounds were furnished at Gatun, 
Pedro Miguel, and Miraflores is substantially correct, and the testi¬ 
mony referred to therein substantiates the claim of the Contractor 
that sufficient storage grounds were not furnished at Gatun, Pedro 
Miguel, or Miraflores. The correspondence dealing with the subject 
of the storage grounds furnished at Miraflores is found in exhibits 
48 to 70, inclusive, of the Isthmian testimony, volume 31. From this 
correspondence it appears that the contractor complained that the 
back fill which was to be used as a storage ground was not sufficient 
to accommodate one full cargo of steel and insisted that there should 
be storage grounds sufficient for from 7,000 to 10,000 tons of ma¬ 
terial on the upper level. (See letter of Mr. Jewel to the chairman 
and chief engineer dated Jan. 12, 1912, Exhibit No. 52.) It also 
appears from a letter from Mr. McClintic, dated January 24, 1912, 
Exhibit No. 53 in the exhibits above referred to, that he had in¬ 
structed the shop as follows: 

Do not ship any material for Miraflores until after further advised, as the 
fill at Miraflores is not in shape for receiving it. 

On February 3, 1912, Mr. Jewel wrote to Mr. Goftlmark that— 

Our -work has been considerably delayed, and we have been put to a great 
deal of extra expense on account of having material delivered, both at Gatun 
and Pedro Miguel, before the storage yards were in proper shape for sorting 
this material, and consequently it had to be unloaded in promiscuous piles 
without regard to order. 

We must insist that every effort be made to avoid this condition at Miraflores. 
This will require the back fill to be extended the full length of the upper 
chamber on the east side, so that material can be unloaded in a systematic way. 

Again, on February 13, 1912, he wrote Mr. Goldmark, calling his 
attention to the fact that he had received notice that the first four 
77-foot leaves for Miraflores would be shipped not later than March 
1 and urged him to have the back fill completed for the full length 
of the chamber ready to receive the material. 

The correspondence referred to contains numerous protests that 
the fill was too narrow, urging that it be increased in width. 

On June 1,1912, Mr. Jewel wrote to Mr. Goldmark, stating, among 
other things, that— 

We can delay starting the work at Miraflores not later than Monday, June 10, 
and we must request that this storage space outlined above be completed to 
the limits mentioned at that time. 

The storage space referred to in this quotation was as follows: 

Referring to storage yard at Miraflores: When you, Mr. Williamson, and the 
writer looked this ground over some time ago it was agreed that the yard with 
two parallel tracks, 25 feet center to center, and a storage space 70 feet wide 
on each side of this pair of tracks should be completed for a distance of 1,000 
feet on the upper level by May 21. This much space is the minimum to allow 
the proper storage of the material for the first gates at Miraflores, but is not 
yet completed. 

On June 11,1912, Mr. Goldmark wrote to Mr. Jewel: 

Replying to your letter of June 1 with regard to storage yard at Miraflores, 

I looked over this yard on June 4 and it seems to me that the ground is now 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


259 


ready for your use for any purpose that you can put it to in the immediate 
future. The ground has been graded for two tracks and beyond two tracks for 
a distance of about 40 feet with a total width of about 215 feet from the edge 
of the lock wall. This full width extends to a point about opposite the middle 
gate and far above the upper guard gate. The filling is going on as rapidly 
as possible below the middle gate and only a small, narrow triangle remains 
unlilled between the back of the side wall and the high level. There are also 
some other tracks on this level which could probably be used for placing mate¬ 
rial. An estimate made by Mr. Mathews and myself would indicate that several 
hundred girders could be placed easily on the ground now available, besides 
ample room for plates and smaller parts. 

I do not see, therefore, any reason for anticipating trouble with reference to 
unloading material at this point. 

In his letter of June 1, 1912, to Mr. Goldmark, Mr. Jewel states: 

We anticipate delivering the first erection bridge at Miraflores about July 1. 
Considerable material for Miraflores is now on the Isthmus unloaded at Gatun 
and Pedro Miguel, ready to reship as quickly as the back fill is in condition 
to receive it. 

Replying to the letter of June 11, 1912, from Mr. Goldmark, 
quoted above, Mr. Jewel states: 

I am in receipt of your letter of June 11, in regard to storage facilities at 
Miraflores. 

As stated to you and Mr. Williamson personally, on the ground, when it was 
agreed that 1,000 feet of this storage yard with two tracks through the center, 
graded Go to 70 feet on each side outside of the tracks, would be ready on 
May 19, this is the minimum amount of space which will allow us to begin 
operations at Miraflores. 

As stated to you verbally, more than once, our operations both at Gatun 
and Pedro Miguel, have been seriously handicapped on account of insufficient 
storage space, as well as back filling and other operations going on in the 
storage yard at the same time as the lock-gate erection. Practically all 
girders for the upper guard gates at Miraflores have been unloaded at Gatun 
and Pedro Miguel, where they are still stored on account of the unfinished 
condition of the Miraflores work. 

It is possible to pile a great mass of material in a small space, but it is not 
possible to make any progress on erection unless such material is distributed 
so that it can be secured approximately in the order wanted for erection. In 
order to do this we must have 1,000 feet of yard room with two tracks and 
space on each side as outlined above, and failure on your part to provide 
this means delay to our work. 

We now have a crane at Miraflores and will load and ship all material 
for the work there which has been unloaded at other places as quickly as 
storage yard is provided as outlined above. We will be ready to begin erec¬ 
tion operations at the upper end of the upper level by the end of the present 
month, and at the lower end of the upper level by the latter part of August 
at the outside. (See Exhibit No. 64, vol. No. 31.) 

On July 26, 1912, Mr. Jewel wrote Mr. Goldmark as follows: 

On July 25 about S00 feet in length of two parallel tracks were turned over 
to us by the Pacific Division for storage. 

Mr. Clark advises me that this is all the space which will be available to 

us for the next two or three weeks. 

Yt a conference between you, Mr. Williamson, and the writer at Miraflores 
early in the year it was pointed out that a 1,000-foot length of track with GO 
to 70 feet of storage space on each side would be the minimum amount of 
space which would answer our purpose and enable us to handle material and 
get the erection started at Miraflores without loss of time and extra expense 
in handling material. Mr. Williamson promised this much available space 
four months from the time of our conference, which would make it May 21. 

On July 25 the fill was extended for a total length of about 450 feet on 
the side next to the lock wall. From this point the fill drops away from the 
lock wall intersecting the storage tracks as shown approximately on the 
attached. ’ On the outside of the two storage tracks, that is, the side away from 
the lock chambers, the width of a fill promised is obtained for a distance of a 
few hundred feet at the lower or south end of the fill. 


260 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


We have already handled a great deal of material for Miraflores twice. 
This material contains about 350 sheathing plates which have been stacked 
up at Miraflores for some time awaiting available space for sorting and storing 
in the proper way. We expect to start the erection with our first set of 
bridges at the north end of the Miraflores Locks next week, but have not yet 
delivered all material necessary to complete the first set of four leaves which 
this bridge will erect. 

I am calling your attention to the condition of the track at Miraflores as a 
matter of record, and would like for you to visit this point with me next week 
when convenient, when I can show you on the ground just how our operations 
are handicapped and made more expensive on account of the conditions under 
which the work there must be carried on. (See Exhibit No. 66, Isthmian 
exhibits, vol. No. 31.) 

Just what reply was made to this letter does not appear in the 
testimony. 

On August 16,1912, Mr. Jewel wrote the McClintic-Marshall Con¬ 
struction Co. that— 

We are up to the masonry work in erection at Miraflores and are handi¬ 
capped by unfinished back fill both there and at Gatun. 

Other correspondence in connection with the storage yards and 
tracks at Gatun and Miraflores, in the exhibits above referred to, 
supports the contention of the Contractor that he was not furnished 
with sufficient, suitable, and unoccupied storage yards and tracks at 
either Gatun, Pedro Miguel, or Miraflores. 

The claim of the Contractor on page 39 of the claim, that— 

The Commission failed to furnish, in accordance with the terms of the con¬ 
tract, sufficient, suitable, and unoccupied storage grounds on the Isthmus for 
the material of the Contractor— 

is established. 

The Contractor does not give any basis upon which he arrives at 
the amount to be deducted for the condition of yards and tracks in 
establishing his normal for Miraflores. (See p. 75 of the claim and 
p. 253 of this report.) If the normal arrived at by taking Mr. 
Mitchell’s estimate and increasing it, as shown on pages 265, 266, 
and 267 of this report, is to be taken as the final basis for the ex¬ 
amination of the claim, the total excess for labor and general ex¬ 
penses will be $943,612. This is equal to 77.4 per cent of the claim 
of the Contractor for these items as finally revised. (See p. 254 of 
this report.) SeA^enty-seven and four-tenths per cent of the amount 
deducted ’or condition of yards and tracks—$6,753—would equal 
$5,226 as the amount to be deducted as excess labor for condition 
of yards and tracks in establishing a normal, as shown on page 75, 
of the Contractor’s claim. To this should be added $747 to cover the 
excess of transportation, liability, and general expenses, treating the 
claim as a whole, as explained on page 267 of this report. By this 
method the amount of the claim at Miraflores for condition of yards 
and tracks was $5,973.81. This would make the total amount claimed 
on this account, under the way in which the claim is stated, approxi¬ 
mately $19,546. 

The total contract price of the-leaves at the various lock sites was 
as follows: 

Gatun, 40 leaves (Nos. 1 to 40, inclusive)_$2, 421,174. 29 

Pedro Miguel, 24 leaves (Nos. 50 to 73, inclusive)_ 1, 419! 009 75 

Miraflores, 28 leaves (Nos. 100 to 127, inclusive)_ l] 69o! 323 14 


Total. 


5, 530, o07.18 






McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO, 


261 


The average price per leaf at the different lock sites was as 
follows: 


Gatun_ 

Pedro Miguel 
Miraflores __ 


$60, 529. 35 
59,125. 40 
60, 368. 68 


The liquidated damages per day, in accordance with the terms of 
the original contract, on the entire 40 leaves at Gatun would have 
been $2,421. On all the leaves at Pedro Miguel it would have been 
$1,419 per day, and on all the leaves at Miraflores it would have been 
$1,690 per day. On individual leaves at Gatun, if it could have been 
computed that way, it would have been about $60 per day, and at 
Pedro Miguel it would have been about $59 per day; at Miraflores, 
about $60 per day. 

The Contractor was paid one-half the value of the material before 
it was delivered at the lock sites. If we should assume that the 
damages to the Contractor for delays caused by the Government 
were as great as the liquidated damages which the Contractor agreed 
to pay for delays, basing the rate on the unpaid portion of the con¬ 
tract price, the damages to the Contractor per leaf would have been 
about $30 per day. 

The delay at Miraflores that was claimed was claimed on all of the 
leaves. $30X28, the number of leaves, would make $840 per day. 
At this rate the damages to the Contractor for the delays at Mira¬ 
flores would have been $9,240. 

The total amount paid for labor, transportation, liability, and gen¬ 
eral expenses was $3,561,898. The period of erection covered about 990 
working days. This would make the daily average expenditure at all 
locks nearly $4,000. Of course, in the beginning of the work there 
was but a very small per cent of the average expenditure per day. 
The condition" of the storage yards at Gatun, however, continued 
for a considerable period of time—some five or six months. It con¬ 
tinued for a considerable time, also, at Pedro Miguel, much longer 
than the actual number of days allowed for the delays. The inter¬ 
ruptions and interfences at Miraflores extended over a considerably 
longer period than 11 days of the additional time which was claimed. 
It also appears that a considerable amount of material for Miraflores 
had to be unloaded at Gatun and subsequently loaded and shipped 
to Miraflores, also some of the material had to be handled a second 
time on account of the fact that it could not be properly stored when 
unloaded at Miraflores. 

These damages are impossible of definite ascertainment by any 
method of computation or the application of any exact figures to 
known conditions. The best that can be done, therefore, is to make 
a reasonable estimate as to what would appear to be a fair, just, and 
equitable amount to be paid to the Contractor on account of the 
failure to furnish sufficient, suitable unoccupied storage grounds. 

The amount of the claim when reduced to correspond with the nor¬ 
mal cost as shown on page 267 of this report seems to be reasonable 
and fair. The allowance on this specific item in the claim would 
amount to about $20,000. 

Taking into consideration the fact that the delays, interruptions, 
and extra expenses on account of not having sufficient suitable storage 
grounds at Gatun and Pedro Miguel were much greater than at Mira- 





262 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


flores, the deduction from the actual expenses at Miraflores in ar¬ 
riving at a normal would be authorized, and the allowance that 
would result from such reduction in the actual expenses to arrive 
at a normal is considered reasonable. 

The above computations have been inserted merely to show the 
reasonableness of the claim. 

The second paragraph of the third claim in support of claim 6, 
page 39 of the book of claims, reads as follows: 

That the Commission obstructed the erection by its failure to keep water out 
of the lock chambers and in other ways. 

/ The money value placed on this claim by way of deduction from 
the actual expenses at Miraflores to establish a normal is as follows: 

(d) Water in lock chambers, $5,000. 

(See p. 75 of the Contractor’s claim; for Contractor’s reference to 
the testimony in support of this claim see his brief, pp. 102 to 104, 
inclusive.) 

Mr. Goldmark’s recollection as to what took place in connection 
with the flooding of the lock chambers is given on pages 40 to 45, 
inclusive, of his report. This is a short and rather complete state¬ 
ment of the main facts, subsequently supported by the testimony of 
witnesses, and is quoted in full below: 

FLOODING OF LOCK CHAMBERS. 

The contract and specifications contained no reference to the flooding of the 
locks, nor to any obligation upon the Commission to keep the locks free from 
water. The contract does, however, provide that the Commission shall furnish 
suitable foundations, and it was subsequently held (see letter of Col. Hodges 
to the chairman of Nov. 8, 1911, file 84-C-81, Pt. VI) that this called for suit¬ 
able foundations free from water, and that it was the duty of the Commission 
to free the sumps and lock sills, as well as the locks, from such water as might 
come in from time to time. It may be added that it was necessary, in order to 
carry on the work done by the Commission directly, that in most places the 
water should be removed, and pumps were installed for this purpose. 

At Gatun there was never any trouble or complaint from the contractors of 
sumps not being pumped out as needed, and the water never rose above the 
sills. At Pedro Miguel there was very serious flooding, as the Pedro Miguel 
River at times of great rainfall backed up into the locks for a period of several 
days at a time. Furthermore, the entire drainage from Culebra Cut was car¬ 
ried through the culvert in the middle wall at Pedro Miguel, and on one or two 
occasions the wooden flume connecting this culvert with the tail bay of the west 
lock broke, flooding this chamber. 

The first complaint was contained in a letter from Mr. Jewel to Henry Gold- 
mark dated October 21, 1911 (file S4-C-S1, Pt. VI), complaining of the rain 
filling the sumps in the east chamber so that it ran over the gate sills. This 
complaint was referred to Col. Hodges by myself in letter of October 23, 1911, 
and by Col. Hodges to the chairman by memorandum of October 23, 1911, re¬ 
sulting in a letter from the chairman to Mr. Watt, acting division engineer, 
dated October 23, 1911, instructing him to keep the sumps clear of water. On 
November 4, 1911 (same file), Mr. Williamson requested further instructions, 
claiming that it was the Contractor’s business to keep the sumps free from 
water after they had once been pumped out. 

This letter of Mr. Williamson was commented upon by myself November 8, 
1911, in a memorandum to Col. Hodges, and also in a memorandum from Coll 
Plodges to the chairman of the same date, in which the Commission’s obligation 
to keep water out of the locks was pointed out. 

This interpretation of the contract was apparently approved by the chair¬ 
man. At any rate, from that time on it was understood that the Commission 
was to keep the water out of the locks, and steps were taken to remove the 
water at different times as it accumulated. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


2G3 


Although no radical means were adopted to keep out the flood water at Pedro 
Miguel until a later period, as a matter of fact there were numerous complaints 
from the Contractor as to further floods in the Pedro Miguel Locks. They are 
summarized in a report from Mr. Matthews, inspector for the Commission, 
dated December 30, 1912. (See memorandum of Henry Goldmark to Col. 
Hodges of May 10, 3913, tile 84-C-S1, Pt. XII.) According to this memorandum 
there were, during 1912, nine separate floods which interfered more or less with 
the Contractor’s work. These floods were made the basis of a claim by the Con¬ 
tractors in connection with their claims for delays in January of 1913. (See 
letter of myself to Col. Hodges of Jan. 27, 1913, and of Col'. Hodges to the 
chairman of Feb. 25, 1913, file S4-C-S1, Pt. XI.) The statement of these floods 
agrees quite closely with those listed in the Contractor’s “ claims ” on page 45, 
although, as a matter of fact, our records show one or two floods not mentioned 
by the Contractor. 

In January, 1913, in recommending a revision in the dates of delivery. Col. 
Hodges recommended that 30 days’ extension be given to the Contractors for 
delays from floods at Pedro Miguel up to that time, this being in accordance 
with the recommendations of myself. I have always thought that this was a 
very moderate allowance for so many interruptions. Although in many cases 
it was possible to transfer the men who were hindered from working by the 
floods to some other part, this was not always the case, and there is no doubt 
whatsoever that the program of the Contractor’s erection force was seriously 
interfered with by these floods. 

As a matter of fact, there was not the slightest excuse for not having pre¬ 
vented the entrance of water into the lock chambers. A simple dam about 10 
or 12 feet high at the lower end, such as was finally built, would have been 
ample to keep out every drop of water. This was opposed by the division engi¬ 
neer and was built rather late in the day, but even then in such manner that it 
did not remain in perfect condition very long. I have always felt, and I think 
Col. Hodges did, that the interference with this work by floods from the Pedro 
Miguel River was one that could have been foreseen perfectly, and that it was 
a mere piece of good fortune that, owing to an extremely dry season, we did 
not have exactly the same trouble in 1911 as we did in 1912. 

Subsequent to January, 1913, there was, I believe, no further trouble at 
Pedro Miguel until October 1G, 1913. (See letter of Guynn to Henry Goldmark, 
file 84-(>Sl, Pt. XIV.) This date Mr. Guynn wrote me that the pumps were 
broken down in the west lock at Pedro Miguel so that the sumps were filling, 
interfering with the work on leaf 65. I do not find any further reference to 
this flood, and it is not mentioned in the Contractor’s “ claims.” 

In lower Miraflores Lock there was serious trouble from water, but these 
floods coming later were, of course, not mentioned in the delays claimed by the 
Contractor in January, 1913. They are given in some detail in the correspond¬ 
ence subsequent to that date, list of which is appended to this report. The 
records agree quite closely with the Contractor’s record on page 4G. 

The first flood of June 15 appears to have been due to leaving an emergency 
orifice open in the dam, allowing the water to enter the chambers. Our inspector 
recommended allowing two days’ delay for this flood. It is commented upon 
by Mr. Cole in a memorandum of June 21, who also recommends two days’ 
extension of time. There are further reference to this flood in letters of Mr. 
Sterrett to the writer, dated June 27, inclosing a report of his superintendent, 
Mr. Wright; a letter of myself to Mr. Guynn dated June 27; also a letter of 
Inspector Howe to Mr. Guynn dated .lune 29, and letter of Mr. Guynn to myself 
dated June 30, in which he recommends an allowance of three days; a letter 
from Col. Hodges to Childers, general superintendent, dated July 2, 1913, in 
which he concurs with the allowance of three days; and finally a letter from 
Mr. Childers to Col. Hodges of the same date, in which lie says that this 
allowance of three days will be satisfactory to them. (All in file S4-C-S1, 
Pt. XIII.) 

The reference in the Contractor’s “claims” to a flood on June 27 seems to 
be an error arising from some of the letters regarding the last flood being dated 
j U ne 27. 

The next and most important flood at Miraflores occurred on August 31. and 
covered about the period claimed by the Contractor, namely, August 31 to 
September 8 for the west chamber, and August 31 to September 17 in the east 
chainner. This flood was due to a leakage in one of the valves subsequent to 
blowing up the dike below the Miraflores Lock. The water rose to 13 feet in 
the west chamber and to about 4 feet in the east chamber. It proved very 


264 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


difficult to pump out this water in both locks and to close the opening through 
which it came in. It interfered very seriously with the work in both chambers, 
flooding some of the air chambers, requiring extra cleaning out of the air 
chambers in several of the gates, injuring some of their tools, and delaying 
work on all the gates in the lower lock. I do not think it has ever been made 
the subject of a specific claim, as the gates were finished shortly thereafter. 
At the present time the contractors claim a loss of $5,000 due to water in the 
lock chambers. At that time they were employing about 1,200 men at Mira- 
11 ores. I do not think that many of these were paid when no work was going 
on, but the actual loss to the Contractor from stopping work when it was being 
rushed at high speed was undoubtedly serious. The charge of $5,000 for this 
delay does not appear unreasonable. 

SHORTAGE OF WATER SUPPLY. 

The Contractor claims that the water supply was insufficient for his air 
compressors and other purposes on several occasions at Pedro Miguel, and also 
at Miraflores, as well as on one occasion at Gatun. 

The Commission was obliged to furnish this water free of charge, according 
to Specifications Circular 576, section 11. 

With the exception of the shortage claimed on October 7, 1912, at Miraflores, 
I find that all the other dates given agree with our records. In each case 
mentioned the shortage was verified by reports from our own inspectors, and 
instructions were given to remedy the same. Reference is made to list of letters 
appended to this report, which gives details regarding each occasion on which 
the water was insufficient for the Contractor’s needs. 

In a memorandum to Col. Hodges, dated January 27, 1913, report¬ 
ing on the delays in lock-gate erection, Mr. Goldmark states: 

As to No. 13, the flooding of the west chamber at Pedro Miguel, the report of 
Inspector Matthews, attached hereto, is to the effect that there were nine 
floods during this season; and although on each occasion it proved possible to 
change the order of erection in such a way as not to keep the men idle for 
extended periods of time, there is no doubt in my mind that the resulting delays 
in the prosecution of the work were in each case quite considerable. The 
interference with the orderly progress in work of this kind is an important 
matter. The claim of 30 days for nine distinct floods can not be considered 
excessive. (See p. 218, vol. 1, of testimony.) 

The report of Inspector Matthews, referred to by Mr. Goldmark 
in the above-quoted statement, was as follows: 

First flood: May 13, 1912, west chamber flooded 2 feet over sills. Water 
pumped out, leaving sills dry, May 14, 1912. Half colored help sent home all of 
May 13, 1912. 

Second flood: July 17, 1912, west chamber flooded 3 feet over sills. Opera¬ 
tions resumed in full July 18. July 22 water below sill. 

Third flood: July 31, 1912, west chamber flooded 2 feet over sill, causing 
delay to crane. Dismantled erection bridge. Otherwise all men at work on 
gates. August 2 water below sills. 

Fourth flood: August 19, 1912, west chamber IS inches over sills. Men 
transferred to work in east chamber. August 26 water below sills. Crane 
removed. 

Fifth flood: September 17, 1912, west chamber flooded 18 inches over sills 
and remained flooded until September 26. All men remained at work during 
same. 

Sixth flood: September 27, 1912, east and west chambers flooded 7 feet over 
sills. Fifty colored men sent home for day; no white men. Full force resumed 
work following day. October 3 water below sills in east chamber; October 7 
water below sills in west chamber. 

Seventh flood: October 8, 1912, west chamber flooded 14 inches over sills. 
All men at work. October 10 water below sills. 

Eighth flood: October 23, 1912, east and west chambers flooded to extent of 
6 feet over sills. All work suspended on lower guard gates, but all men placed 
at work on other gates. Contractor’s crane submerged and out of commission. 
October 26 water in west chamber below sills; October 30 water in east cham¬ 
ber below sills. Contractor’s crane still remained in chamber and unable to 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 265 

work, due to tracks being in poor condition. November 5 tracks repaired and 
Contractor’s crane resumed work. 

Ninth flood: November 12, 1912, east and west chambers flooded 7 feet over 
sills. Contractors suspended operations half day. November 14 water below 
sills in west chamber. November 15 water below sills in east chamber. All 
men remained at work during flood, with exception noted above. 

November 2G, 1912, Commission’s 24-inch water main broke. All tool men 
sent home for half day. Operations resumed fully November 27. (See file 
S4-C-S1, Pt. XII, chairman’s office, Apr. 1 to May 31, 1913.) 

In reporting upon the claim, Col. Hodges states that: 

The lock chambers at Pedro Miguel and Miratlores were flooded on certain 
occasions, and doubtless the Contractor’s work on certain gates was somewhat 
delayed. My recollection of the circumstances and the report which we have 
on file from our inspectors indicate that the delays were not important and 
that during them the Contractor’s force could have worked elsewhere, although 
possibly to some disadvantage. Under the contract, Article II, last paragraph 
on page 5, such delays are proper causes for extension of time, but are explicitly 
excluded as grounds for damages. They were advanced and considered as 
reasons for extension of time when the contract was modified by that of May 
20, 1913. (See pp. 5 and G, Exhibit 33-A, vol. 33-A, of the evidence.) 

Mr. Guynn stated, in relation to this feature of the claim, that (see 
p. 169, voi. 32 of the testimony) : 

Well, we did have water in the Pedro Miguel and Miraflores Locks on a num¬ 
ber of times, but as to the dates I am unable to say. Up to the time I went 
away, the first part of February, I could have given the number of days, but 
now * * *. When we had heavy rains the water would back up into the 

chamber, and it would interfere with the erection. 

In reply to the question as to whether he considered it unavoidable, 
Mr. Guynn stated: 

Well, that is sort of a hard question. I hardly know how to answer. Of 
course, they could have prevented it, but at considerable cost and trouble. 
They tried to prevent it with sand bags, but were unsuccessful in this. 

He was asked if it was due to unusual and heavy rains, and replied: 

Yes, sir; heavy rains; and there was considerable water that would drain 
into the bottom at Pedro Miguel from what is now Miraflores Lake. We also 
had the same trouble at Miraflores. 

Q. The Commission’s work was interfered with and the cost increased, as 
well?—A. Yes, sir. I would have thought so if I had been paying it out at that 
time. 

Mr. Walker, superintendent of construction for the Commission, 
stated that the lock chambers at Miraflores were flooded several times 
and that such floods were detrimental to the Commission’s work as 
well as to the Contractor’s. 

When asked as to what they were due to, he stated (see p. 145, vol. 
32 of testimony) : 

It was due to the long excavation area we had there and the fact that the 
sump pumps were back in the middle of the lock chamber; they could not be 
gotten in place. The lowest place we had to pump from was about 100 feet 
from the upper guard gates, and heavy rains flooded us several times. It was 
that way continuous all the way out. 

Asked if this condition was unavoidable, he stated: 

I do not see how it could have been helped without a great deal of extra 
expense. 

He stated this condition caused increased expense to the Com¬ 
mission. 

Mr. Wright, foreman of the contractor at Pedro Miguel for a part 
of the work, stated that he was interfered with by water backing 


266 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


into the chamber. Asked if he knew to what extent, he stated (see 
vol. 32 of testimony) : 

No, sir; blit we knocked off there several different days because water was 
going over the sandbags and flooding us out. We could work on the top .leaves, 
but not from the ground up. 

Q. Did it tie up your tools?—A. Yes; everything on the bottom. 

He does not know the extent to which they were held up. 

Mr. Wright was asked: 

Q. Do you remember, Mr. Wright, how much the water flooding in at Mira- 
flores bothered you?—A. I remember it came in there and stayed for over a 
week at one time. We were bothered more in the west than in the east cham¬ 
ber. That was the date the dike was blown up; in the evening the water 
commenced coming in. 

Mr. Wright was asked to look at the claim at the top of page 46, 
showing the various dates in June when there was water in the 
chamber. He stated: 

A. I know there was water in there, but the dates I do not remember. 

Q. The one next to the last (13 feet in west chamber) you will remember.— 
A. I will remember that as long as I live. 

Q. August 31 to September 17, 1913, east chamber flooded. Were you de¬ 
layed much at Miraflores on account of being short an electric crane?—A. I 
was delayed some; not a great deal. 

Q. You can’t tell to what extent?—A. No, sir. 

Q. At times you complained of being short of water?—A. We would have to 
shut down. I have shut down a half day at a time a good many times, but 
1 turned all those records in and can’t remember the dates. 

Q. In that record of water flooding into your chambers, can you say to what 
extent your work was delayed or what expense you were put to?—A. I had a 
big gang working at the lower end and the water came in and shut me down 
entirely; had to lay some of them off and switch them around to the upper end 
there. I would imagine it would stand $5,000 or $6,000. 

Q. Were any of your tools drowned out?—A. Yes; they all went to the 
bottom and some of the electric tools had to be rewired. 

Q. Did you do much cleaning up after the water?—A. Yes; down at the 
bottom I had to clean up. I had a crane gang working on top of the bridge 
cleaning up and loading it on dump cars and taking it out and dumping it. 

Mr. Howe, chief inspector for the Commission at Miraflores, stated 
(see p. 74, vol. 32, of the testimony) : 

Q. One of the claims, Mr. Howe, is that the cost of work was increased to an 
appreciable extent by the flooding out of the lock chambers, both at Pedro 
Miguel and Miraflores. Have you got any recollection of the circumstances or 
any information bearing on claims for increased cost on that account?—A. Not 
at Pedro Miguel. At Miraflores from the 1st day of September until the 
13tli, I think it was. 

Q. If you will look on page 46, at the top of the page, you can see what their 
claim is.—A. August 31 to September 8; yes, sir; that claim is correct, as near 
as I can remember. 

Q. I do not mean to question the record of the delays. What I want to find 
out is whether you have any recollection or data as to what that meant to the 
Contractor. How did he use his men, or what damage was done to his plant, 
or anything similar?—A. The reamers, I think it was in the east chamber, or 
the west chamber; the reamers were damaged there and the men were taken 
off those S2-foot leaves. They had to be sent to the upper level. Work was 
stopped there. 

In relation to flooding the lock chambers and being interferred 
with for lack of water for the compressors, Mr. Childers states (see 
pp. 49 and 50, vol. 32, of the testimony) : 

Q. The next claim under the third is that the Commission obstructed the 
erection, etc. (Reads, bottom p. 45 of claims, in regard to water in the locks.) 
Do you know whether those dates and the amount of water mentioned there is 


McCLINTIC-MAESHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


267 


correct?—A. No. I know we were drowned out quite a number of times; but 
I don’t remember the dates. I did not keep any record of it, but I know it 
was a source of a great deal of trouble. 

Q. (Continues—water at Miraflores.) Do you know whether these are cor¬ 
rect?—A. No; not the dates. I know we were bothered more or less. 

Q. Do you know whether the second item from the bottom is correct? 
(Miraflores, lower level, Aug. 31 to Sept. 8, 1013, 13 feet in west chamber.) — 
A. No; not as to the date; but I remember the time we had the big flood in 
that particular chamber. We had difficulty in getting, in a bulkhead or 
something; it laid us off for a number of days. 

Q. Is the next paragraph correct? (Both at Pedro Miguel and Miraflores 
the water, etc.)—A. Yes; that statement is correct. Our electric reamers were 
flooded and things of that kind. 

Q. The next paragraph says that the work was delayed and made more ex¬ 
pensive on account of the water supply of the Commission giving out at 
numerous times, and the electric current furnished on many occasions being 
insufficient. Do you remember that?—A. At Gatun we had considerable trouble 
due to shortage of water. In fact we ran for quite a little while there with a 
shortage. I believe you remember me taking up with you that we must get 
water; we were tying up the compressors. We were also short of water on 
testing the leaves at Miraflores—I can not say as to other places, but we were 
bothered with it. 

I think we were bothered with it testing the leaves at Gatun. 

Mr. Sterrett. (Shortage of water at Gatun to cool air compressors; last para¬ 
graph, p. 4G.) Do you remember that? 

A. Yes; we eventually laid a special line from Gatun water tank down to our 
air-compressor house. (See pp. 49 and 50, vol. 32 of testimony.) 

Mr. Courter, superintendent of construction at Pedro Miguel, 
gives his version as to the way he was obstructed by failure to keep 
water out of the lock chambers, and in other ways, on pages 59, GO, 
61, and 62 of his testimony, volume 16. This testimony is quoted 
below: 

Mr. Sterrett : The Contractor’s second statement of the claim on page 39 is; 
“ That the Commission obstructed the erection by its failure to keep water out 
of the lock chambers and in other ways.” Now, do you remember to what 
extent the erection was interferred with by water backing into the lock cham¬ 
bers? 

Mr. Courter. Why, yes; two or three different times. 

Mr. Sterrett. The record of the Contractor, as given on page 45, shows that 
the lock chambers at Pedro Miguel were flooded as follows: 

May 13, 1912, water for 3 days in the west chamber. 

July 12, 1912, water in sump holes, which caused sickness amongst the Con¬ 
tractor’s men. 

July 16-26, 1912, water for 10 days in the west chamber. 

July 31, 1912, water for 3 days in the west chamber. 

Now, you left in August? 

Mr. Courter. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sterrett. Then that is as far as you would remember. In what way, 
if you remember, did that water break in there? 

Mr Courter Why, the dam broke or something else above came down and 
let water into the chamber, and it tilled up to 7 or 8 feet deep—up to the third 
storv of the leaves—and we could not work, and all our tools were down in 
there I had to build rafts out of timber for the men to go around; and the 
tracks were all up this way, and then they had to wait until the water was 
down and then to fix up the tracks. And I had to lay my men off. 


I think that occurred three times while I 


By Judge Harrah : 

Q. How often did that occur?—A. 
was there. 

Q. That same kind of condition?—A. Yes, sir. 

6 Did you take any steps to have it remedied? A. You could not. Yes, sir; 
T took it up with Mr. Hinman and Mr. Cole; but the excessive rains, you know, 
caused a dam to burst, and it let the water come down into the chambers. _ 

O Could it have been avoided by any proper precaution that the Commission 
might have taken to prevent it from coming down there?—A. Yes; they did 


268 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


not fix the dam right, and the water they left lying in there. I asked them to 
pump it out several times, and then I finally got Mr. Hinman to come down 
with me, and I showed him. It was all covered with a green, slimy substance, 
and my men were all sick; and he took it up with Mr. Cole, and they came 
down there and they looked at it, and then they went to work and put pumps 
in and pumped it out, and from that time on they kept it pretty clean. 

Mr. Sterrett. Do you know, while you were there, if you were interfered 
with in your work, as stated in that paragraph? It says: 

“ By water backing into the lock chambers, and in other ways.” 

Were you interfered with by your water supply for keeping up your boilers 
running short, or were you interfered with in the electric current that they 
furnished? 

Mr. Courter. Several times the current was off. Once my men broke the 
wire down themselves with a crane and caused a delay there of about half a 
day; but several other times there was something wrong with the current—I do 
not know what it was—that stopped the whole work. 

Mr. Sterrett. Stopped your compressors, and that stopped the riveting? 

Mr. Courter. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sterrett. Do you know how often that occurred? 

Mr. Courter. Well, I could not tell you just exactly; two or three times. 

Mr. Sterrett. It says on page 48: 

At Pedro Miguel, up to the beginning of February, 1912, the water supply 
was insufficient. 

Do you remember anything about that? 

Mr. Courter. Yes; we had trouble with the water for our compressors all 
the time. They did not have power enough—pressure enough to throw the 
water up there to keep our compressors cool; we had to have a stream of 
water running on the compressors all the time. 

Mr. Sterrett. Were your compressors shut down much? 

Mr. Courter. Several times; yes, sir. 

Mr. Sterrett. Several times? 

Mr. Courter. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sterrett. When you say “several,” what do you mean—three or four? 

Mr. Courter. Three or four times. 

Mr. Sterrett. Did you ever have to carry water from Paraiso, 2 miles away, 
to supply your men with drinking water? 

Mr. Courter. We had all the time to carry it. 

Mr. Sterrett. l r ou had to carry water all the time that you were there? 

Mr. Courter. l T es, sir. 

Mr. Sterrett. I know when I was on the Isthmus they were carrying water 
for a mile, but later we got that fixed. The water was piped. 

Mr. Courter. We had a spring part of the time; but some of the dock men, 
Guineas, blowed the pipe out with a blast; they blowed it out, and then we had 
to go and carry water away up from the Paraiso spring. 

Mr. Sterrett. l r ou mean colored men, do you not? What are called 
“ Guineas ” are Italians. 

Mr. Courter. They were Spaniards; a lot of Spaniards. 

In his testimony, pages 101 to 103, inclusive, volume 8, Mr. Gold- 
mark gives his views as to the extent to which he thinks the Con¬ 
tractor was interfered with by water in the locks, and reiterates his 
statement in his report, that he thinks $5,000 for Miraflores would 
be reasonable. 

In answer to a direct question on this proposition, Mr. Goldmark 
states: 

A. I think that would be reasonable, as at that time things were being pushed 
very hard at Miraflores. It was a very critical time, and there was a good 
deal of actual damage, some actual damage that had to be repaired by the Con¬ 
tractors; and a thorough stoppage of all work of 12 or 13 days, something like 
that? 

Q. Was the flooding of the locks or chambers at Pedro Miguel the result of 
any unusual or excessive rainfall for that season of the year—in that climate 
down there?—A. I do not think so. There were no provisions made to take 
care of less rainfall, and, while I suppose the exact amount of water that got 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 269 

in was due to the actual amount of rain that fell, I think in any rainy season 
it could have been looked for. 

Q. What provision was taken by the Commission to prevent the flooding of 
the locks during the time of erection?—A. Well, that water all came in from the 
lower end, the south end, of the lock. The work began in midsummer of 1911; 
the work of erection began then. And nothing was done to keep out the water 
at the lower end of the lock at that time. And all through that rainy season 
the only reason why the floods did not come was because it was a very dry sort 
of a rainy season. 

Then when the next rainy season came, in 1912, we had this series of floods, 
and when the first few of them came I took the ground that we ought by all 
means—that was October, 1911—build a barrier at the lower end of the lock; 
a barrier 10 or 12 feet high would be ample; not very expensive; not very 
troublesome. I think myself it should have been built in the beginning, without 
waiting for trouble. But Mr. Williamson, after he got back from his leave, 
took the ground that it was the Contractor’s business to keep that water out of 
the locks, because nothing was said in the lock-gate specifications about the 
Commission’s keeping the water out. 

And that was the subject of some discussion; but it was finally decided by 
the chairman that, under the clause that the Commission was required to 
furnish foundations, and for other reasons, the Commission was under obliga¬ 
tion to keep the water out of the locks, and the division engineer was instructed 
to take steps to do it, which he then did. (See pp. 103 and 104 of Mr. Gold¬ 
mark’s testimony, vol. S.) 

On page 105 of his testimony, Mr. Goldmark gives his views as 
to flooding of the locks at Miraflores that took place from August 31 
to September IT, 1913. He was asked: 

Did you take any special precautions to keep the water out at Miraflores 
during the period of erection?—A. I believe there was a small dam built at the 
lower end of the lower lock at Miraflores, but leakages occurred through an orifice 
in this dam several times between June 15, 1913, and the end of the month. 
They were not very important leaks. 

Now, the principal trouble at Miraflores took place from August 31 and 
extended until about September 17. This was due to pure accident. The lower 
gates had been closed, and the main valves in the culverts had been closed, 
and I think about August 31 the large railroad dike which shut off the water 
of the Pacific from the lock was blown up, so that the water rose to sea level 
against the lower guard gates. It then appeared that one big culvert valve 
leaked very badly, and it took the Commission a long time to close that leak, 
the water rising to 13 feet in the west chamber and to about 4 feet in the east 
chamber. Of course, the only step to be taken then was to close that valve 
promptly. 

(). During that period, the work of the contractor had to be stopped in that 
lock, did it not?—A. Well, they may have done some little work above the 
water level, but, as I recollect it, they were pretty well stopped. 

The testimony substantiates the claim of the Contractor that the 
water was not kept out of the lock chambers at all times, and that the, 
was, to minor extent, interfered with in other ways by failure to have 
the necessary water for cooling his compressors. 

It is also the opinion of your committee that it was the duty of the 
Commission to take such steps as appeared to be necessary to keep 
the locks free from water while the erection was going on. The 
amount of the claim seems to be reasonable, and it will be considered 
as a proper deduction from the actual expenses at Miraflores in 
determining a normal at Miraflores. 

The next contention of the Contractor in support of claim 6, para¬ 
graph 3 of section 3, page 39 in the book of claims, is as follows: 

That the Commission, through its engineers, by forcing the Contractor to 
punch the holes for the field rivets smaller than called for by the specifications, 
greatly delayed the work in the field and increased the erection cost. 


270 


McCLINTIC-MAESHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


This contention of the Contractor principally affects the specific 
claim for bolting up with small holes, reaming out the small holes, 
and excess riveting. (P. 75 in book of claims.) These claims will 
be considered in their order: 

( b ) Bolting up with small holes, 37.S per cent of $153,303, $57,950. 

From this it appears that it is the contention of the Contractor 
that 37.8 per cent of the actual expenses at Miraflores, exclusive of 
rush work, was caused by being required to bolt up with small bolts. 

Paragraph 36 of the specifications provides that: 

36. Rivet holes in all material three-fourths inch thick or over shall he 
drilled from the solid, the holes to be one-eighth inch smaller in diameter than 
the nominal size of the rivet to be used. Material under three-fourths inch 
thick shall he punched with a punch one-eighth inch less in diameter than the 
nominal size of the rivet. After the material is thus reduced or drilled it 
shall, after assembling in the field, have all holes reamed out to a diameter 
one-sixteenth inch larger than the nominal size of the rivet. Before doing this 
the work shall he thoroughly bolted together, so that no chips or shavings 
may be forced in between the assembled parts during the reaming. The out¬ 
side burrs must be removed from all reamed or drilled holes by slightly coun¬ 
tersinking the holes. After the reaming is done the parts assembled are to be 
riveted up as far as feasible without taking them apart. 

Paragraph 121 provides that: 

121. In the field erection the separate parts shall be tightly bolted together, 
using bolts in practically all of the holes, and the rivet and bolt holes shall 
then be reamed out to their full size. 

Paragraph 18 of the agreement of August 8, 1910, provides that: 

Wherever the skin is more than eleven-sixteenths inch in thickness on the 
upstream side use 1-inch rivets with 8 by 8 inch angles. 

The way in which the Contractor arrives at the amount of this 
claim is shown on pages 76 and 77 of the claim, quoted below: 

(b) Bolting up with small holes. —The Contractor claims that on account 
of the small holes he was forced to use the expense of bolting up on the part 
of the leaves where 1-inch rivets are used was two and one-half times as great 
as it should have been, and on the part of the leaves where seven-eighths inch 
rivets are used at least one and one-fourth times as great as it should have 
been. In the skin of one 77-foot leaf are used approximately 18,000 1-inch 
rivets and 45,000 seven-eighths inch rivets, a proportion of 2 to 5. It there¬ 
fore follows that if the expense of bolting up with the larger holes would have 
been 7 this expense was increased by the use of small holes to 2 by 21 equals 
$5; 5 by li equals $0.25; total, $11.25. 

The normal expense should therefore have been 62.2 per cent of the actual 
expense the Contractor had to incur, or the Commission should pay the Con¬ 
tractor 87.8 per cent of the actual cost of $153,303, or $57,950. This would 
reduce the cost of bolting up from $S.G4 per ton to about $5.00 per ton. 

From this statement of the contract it appears that the only basis 
for determining the increased expense that was occasioned by being 
required to bolt up with small bolts is an estimate made by the Com 
tractor. 

Before considering this claim further, and in connection with what 
will follow, it is desired to call attention to certain provisions of the 
contract and state the effect that such provisions should have on 
the adjudication of claims of this character. 

Article IV of the contract contains authority for changes, and nro- 
vides that— 1 

Any claim for such changes shall be made by the Contractor at the time 
of the changes, or no allowance will be made or money paid on account of the 
same. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


271 


Article X of the contract, quoted on page 275 of this report, pro¬ 
vides that claims for compensation for extra work, labor, and mate¬ 
rial must be agreed upon in writing by the parties to the contract 
before the work is commenced or the labor or material furnished. 

These provisions in the contract gave the Contractor specific notice 
that it was necessary for him to make claim for extras at the time of 
being required to perform work that he considered as not coming 
within the requirements of the contract. 

One of the reasons why it is essential that such claims should be 
made at the time and settled while the work is in progress, is in oruer 
that they may be investigated when the facts are all available. An¬ 
other reason why the compensation for changes or extra work should 
be agreed upon at the time the work is being performed is in order to 
give the Government an opportunity to avoid the increased expense 
of doing the extra work, unless it appears that a corresponding 
benefit Avill be received. In many cases the work could be done as 
well without the claimed extras as with them, and it frequently hap¬ 
pens that what the contractor claims to be extra work does not in 
any way benefit the Government. Another reason is in order that 
the responsible persons in charge of the work may have it performed 
for the amounts specified in the contract. There was a clear duty 
upon the part of the contractor to present his claim for extra com¬ 
pensation at the time the work was being done. His failure to do so 
in this case did deprive the Government of any opportunity to investi¬ 
gate the claim at the time, and also tended to place it beyond the 
power of the responsible officer of the Commission to change the 
conditions. This applies particularly to the change in the specifica¬ 
tions requiring the punching of smaller holes than were called for. 
If the contractor had observed the contract with respect to changes 
and claims for additional compensation, he would have been saved 
much expense, and a considerable part of the expense that was in¬ 
curred in connection with the punching of the smaller holes would 
have been avoided altogether. It is not clear that the punching of 
the smaller holes was of any practical benefit to the work, even in the 
shop; in fact, the evidence indicates that the small holes were a detri¬ 
ment rather than a benefit to the completed gates. This change in 
the specifications as to the size of the holes did, moreover, make the, 
work more difficult, and it increased the expense of doing it to the 
Contractor. The change in the specifications as to the size of the 
holes was a change that increased the cost of the work without any 
corresponding benefit to the work in the final result. 

With a specific provision in the contract limiting the right of the 
Contractor to recover for extra work to such claims as were made at 
the time the work was being performed, the responsible officers of 
the Commission had a right to assume that extra work was not be¬ 
ing required. If the claim had been made and it had been found 
that the extra work was unnecessary and of no benefit, the expense 
in connection with it could have been avoided altogether. 

The provisions of the contract, quoted and commented upon above, 
were valuable to the Government, and were intended to protect it 
against just such claims as are now being urged as equitable, just, 
and fair. Notwithstanding this fact, however, the Contractor does 
not appear to have made any specific attempt to comply with such 


272 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


provisions, further than to protest from time to time against the 
requirements of the Commission, without in any way attempting to 
point out the extent to which he was being damaged regarding in¬ 
creased expense for performing extra work in doing the work “un¬ 
der requirements as to character and finish not fairly within the 
meaning of the specifications.” 

Every person is presumed to intend the natural, necessary, and 
probable consequences of his own acts. The natural, necessary, and 
probable consequences of the acts of the Commission’s engineers and 
inspectors to the extent that they insisted that the work should be 
done “ under requirements as to character and finish not fairly within 
the meaning of the specifications ” was to increase the cost of the 
work to the Contractor. On the other hand, the natural, necessary, 
and probable consequences of the acts of the Contractor in perform¬ 
ing what he now claims was extra work caused by a change in the 
specifications, without making the claims that should have been made 
therefor under the terms of the contract, at the time the work was 
being performed, reserving to himself the right to submit such claims 
in future, as was done in this case, was, if such claims are allowed in 
full, to make the work more expensive without any sufficient corre¬ 
sponding benefit moving to the Government. 

The extent to which the failure of the Contractor to observe the 
provisions of the contract above considered may have affected the 
increased expense on any claim is a proper element to be taken into 
consideration in determining the amount which in equity, justice, and 
fairness should be allowed on such claim. 

The question as to the responsibility of changing the holes to a 
smaller diameter than that called for in the specifications is con¬ 
sidered in detail in this report on pages 61 to 140, and it is found that 
(p. 140)— 

The loss and damage to the Contractor due to this change, so far as it can 
be traced, should therefore, in equity, fairness, and justice be borne by the 
United States, except in so far as he may have contributed to the loss by his 
failure to present his claim in the manner provided for under the terms of the 
contract. 

The way in which the Contractor arrives at the amount of the 
claim for bolting up is by assuming that the actual cost for bolting 
up was increased by 37.8 per cent on account of the change in the 
size of the subpunched holes. If this assumption is correct as to the 
actual increase due to the change in the size of the holes, the per 
cent of the increase in cost could have been presented at the time the 
change was made. The same is true as to the claim for reaming. 
The amount of increased expense in the item of bolting up under 
this assumption, not including the item of rush work that to a 
certain extent was dependent upon the difficulties incurred in being 
required to bolt up with the small bolts, was approximately $190,000, 
and the increased expense claimed for reaming was approximately 
$42,000. 

In addition to this the evidence indicates that a very large percent¬ 
age of the loose rivets resulted from the inability of the Contractor 
to bolt up with the small bolts. About $100,000 should be added to 
the above sums to cover the extra expense claimed in having to cut 
out rivets due to inability to bolt up with small bolts. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 273 

If we add to these sums the amount of the claim for rush work 
that is dependent upon the delays and difficulties resulting from the 
small holes and the percentage of the claim for transportation, 
liability, and insurance, the total amount of the claim due to the 
change in the size of the holes will be between $600,000 and $700,000. 

It is inconceivable that the Contractor should knowingly have sub¬ 
mitted to a change in the specifications that would have caused him 
this much increased expense without submitting any claim for the 
additional expense occasioned by the change in the specifications. 
It is also inconceivable that the responsible engineers and inspectors 
for the Commission would have knowingly insisted on or advised 
a change in the specifications that would have had such a far-reach¬ 
ing effect on the work in the field. The only reasonable conclusion 
that can be reached from these facts, therefore, assuming that the 
estimates to any reasonable extent represent the actual extra expense 
that w'as incurred, is that the requirements were insisted upon with¬ 
out knowledge of the effect they would have upon the work, and 
that the Contractor was acquiescing without realizing the extent of 
the damage and loss that he was suffering by reason of the change 
in the size of the holes. 

The Commission had a right to presume that the Contractor knew 
the extent to which any change in the specifications was affecting the 
work and had a right to assume that if such change was radically in¬ 
creasing the expenses to him without any corresponding benefit that 
he would present the facts in relation thereto for consideration under 
the terms of the contract. The inaction of the Contractor would have 
the effect, as it evidently did in this case, of leading the engineers 
and inspectors of the Government to believe that the change was 
sufficiently beneficial to the Contractor in some part of the work to 
justify him in waiving his right to extra compensation for increased 
expense in the field. This fact alone, however, gave no right to the 
Commission’s inspectors and engineers to insist upon a change in the 
specifications against the protest of the Contractor for the benefit of 
the shcpwork which would increase the cost of the work to the 
Contractor in the field and also probably increase the cost of the 
work as a whole. 

Your committee, in attempting to fix the responsibility as to the 
effect of this change, does not feel that the entire burden in connec¬ 
tion with the change should be borne by the Government. It seems 
that each party to the contract was almost equally at fault, at least 
in the beginning. 

In April, 1911, Mr. Goldmark was at the works of the Contractor. 
The subject matter of the change in the size of the holes was then 
fresh in the minds of the parties and a very small part of the 
material had been punched with small holes, and if the question had 
been presented to Mr. Goldmark at that time, a claim made and 
insisted upon, it is entirely probable that the matter would have 
then been adjusted in such a way that a very considerable propor¬ 
tion of the expense would have been avoided. The matter was sub¬ 
sequently taken up with Mr. Goldmark, but at no time was Mr. 
Goldmark ever informed of the great increase in expense that the 
contractor claimed he was incurring by reason of this change in 
the size of the holes. 

29249°—H. Doc. 906, 64-1-18 


274 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


Another thing that should be noted at this time is that the claim 
is now incapable of any definite and certain determination. The 
records of the contractor were not kept with a view to ascertaining 
in any definite way the increased cost that was due to the change 
in the size of the holes as to bolting up, reaming, or riveting. 

These facts indicate that the contractor and the Government’s 
responsible officers were almost equally at fault as to the manner in 
which this increased expense was incurred. It seems, therefore, 
that such loss and extra expense as resulted from the change in the 
size of the holes should be divided between the Contractor and the 
Government. This rule would not prevail if it could be shown 
that the Government received a benefit in better work equal to the 
increased expense; neither would it prevail except for the fact that 
under the express terms of the contract it was the duty of the Con¬ 
tractor, in the first instance, to point out the extent of the damages 
and losses that he was incurring by reason of the change. 

Equity, justice, and fairness do not permit him to stand by and 
remain silent where the contract expressly requires him to speak, 
and where, in all probability, his failure to speak resulted in a 
considerable portion, at least, of the increased expense being in¬ 
curred without any resulting benefit. It is true that at times he did 
protest, but his protests were not so made as to present for con¬ 
sideration and determination the extent of the loss or extra expenses. 
This is exactly what was required of him under the terms of the con¬ 
tract, and it was only by his observing the condition that the Gov¬ 
ernment could protect itself. 

Each party should assume a burden equal to his default. 

It was more difficult to bolt up wfith five-eighth-inch bolts, which 
the contractor was required to use owing to the small holes, than it 
would have been to have bolted up with the larger bolts that he 
would have been able to use if the holes had been punched in ac¬ 
cordance with the specifications. (See Mr. Goldmark’s testimony, 
vol 8, pp. 39 and 147 to 158, inclusive.) 

On page 150 Mr. Goldmark states, in response to the question as 
to whether it would not be much easier to bolt up and get good 
results with eleven-sixteenth-inch bolts for seven-eighth-inch rivets 
and three-fourth-inch bolts for 1-inch rivets than it would be to 
do all the bolting up with five-eighth-inch bolts, stated: 

Oh, an immense difference, in my opinion, particularly in the latter case. 

He then explains that in the case of the small bolts there would 
be a tendency on the part of the workmen to slight the operation 
for fear of breaking the bolts or stripping the threads. 

On pages 151 to 152 Mr. Wolfel and Mr. Goldmark explain that 
there is almost 50 per cent more area in a three-fourth-incli bolt than 
in a five-eighth-inch bolt, and that nearly 50 per cent more force 
could be applied with a three-fourth-inch bolt than a five-eighth- 
inch bolt, and that the danger of breaking the bolts and the tendency 
to slight the work for fear of breaking the smaller bolts would be 
to a large extent removed. 

On pages 39 and 40 of his testimony, in discussing the question of 
changing to small holes, Mr. Goldmark stated that: 

I would also say that at the time it never occurred to me that that small hole 
eleven-sixteenths inch, would apply to those girders that connected to 1-inch 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL construction CO. 


275 


sheathing plates; or, in other words, that it would apply for 1-inch rivets. And 
when the first girders came down to the Isthmus and I found that the 1-inch 
rnets had eleven-sixteenths-incli holes I was very much astonished. I was 
always under the impression that it was one of the things that the Contractor 
had done, and I never protested; and I am perfectly willing to confess that I 
did not realize that it would make so much trouble in bolting up as it did; but 
I ceitainly never protested. I always thought that the punching of those small 
holes was unnecessary—at least, I always thought that the punching of the 
small boles tor the 1-inch rivets was unnecessary, and I still think so. 

The punching of the Glovon-sixtccnths-inch holes for the seven-eighths-inch 
rivets was only a decrease in size of one-sixteenth inch. And I always thought 
that was unnecessary, until the change was made back to the larger holes. 
Then it was reported to me that they simply could not get good rivets with the 
la 1 go 1 holes in the shop oven; and, while I have never been able to understand 
it, I gradually came to the conclusion that there was something peculiar about 
this work which required the small holes. 

But the fitting of the rivet holes after the first eight gates was so beautiful, 
was so nearly perfect, that I wondered why on earth they punched them with 
the small holes. When Air. Jewel asked me to change them, I said, “ By all 
means,” and then, as you know, they changed them; and they reported from 
Pittsburgh that it would not do, and they changed them back without telling 
me very much about it. 


The following propositions, stated in the Contractor’s brief, page 
106, as modified by your committee, appear to be established by the 
evidence: 


(1) The Contractor was forced to use five-eighths-inch bolts in the prelimi¬ 
nary bolting, which bolts were too small to properly do the work. 

(2) When material was reamed the borings had a greater tendency to get 
between the plates, making it more difficult at the second bolting to get the 
material tight before riveting. 

(3) The material not being tightly bolted was the cause of a large number of 
loose rivets which had to be cut out and redriven. 

(4) The cost of the reaming was very much increased, both in labor and tools. 

The references to this testimony are as follows: 


Testimony— 

Volume. 

Pages. 

Mr. Goldmark. 

1 

61, 65, and 66 (report). 

114, 124, 147, to 158 and 192 to 194. 

96, 98. 

30 to 32, 62, 63. 

46, 77. 

82, 84. 

Do. 

8 

Mr. Wheatcroft. 

13 

Mr. Courter. 

16 

Mr. Hess. 

17 

Mr. Galloway. 

23 

Mr. Childers. 

32 

50 to 52, 59 to 61, 263. 

72, 74, 81. 

Mr. Howe. 

32 

Mr. Dumville. 

32 

90 to 93, 96, 114, 115. 

128, 129, 133. 

161 to 165, 169, 170, 174. 

Mr. Wright. 

32 

Mr. Guyin. 

32 

Mr. Conner. 

35 

19. 

Mr. Lueas. 

35 

26 to 32. 

Mr. Mellon... 

35 

45. 

Mr. H in man. 

36 

6, 7. 

12, 13, 22, 24. 

24,25,31. 

2 (Exhibit No. 3). 

Mr. Wright. 

36 

Mr. Dumville . 

36 

Mr. Hutzley.. 

37 



After permission had been given by Mr. Goldmark in his cable¬ 
gram of January 12, 1912, to punch all holes thirteen-sixteenths 
inch in diameter and work had been begun under this new arrange¬ 
ment on contract 4861, there was still difficulty in getting material 
accepted at the shops with the holes nearly as required in the speci¬ 
fications, as regards diameter. 



























276 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


On April 5, 1912, Mr. Pittman wrote the following letter to 
Messrs. C. D. Marshall, H. H. McClintic, P. L. Wolfel, and L. L. 
Jewel (see Exhibit No. 3 of Mr. Pittman’s testimony, vol. 12) : 

Attached is circular note which sets forth our conclusions relative to change 
in size of holes in lock-gate work. The trouble and expense we have incurred 
in our experience with larger holes in contract 4861 convinces us that no 
possible saving in cost of erecting can compensate for the loss of material 
through rejections at shop and the increased cost of shopwork. 

The first two girders on contract 4861 that were fitted had to be taken apart 
and the angles sent back to bulldozer for stretching and resetting. One of 
the girders was rejected after being reamed, but it was again placed under 
gantries and most of the holes reamed to 1 inch, after which we finally suc¬ 
ceeded in getting it accepted. We tinkered with these two girders about a 
week. We also experienced some trouble owing to the use of three different 
size holes—eleven-sixteenths, three-fourths, and thirteen-sixteenths inch. In 
one case a seven-eighths-inch die was used in connection with a three-fourths- 
inch punch. In the light of this experience, it is believed best to use only two 
size holes—eleven-sixteenths and thirteen-sixteenths inch. These are far 
enough apart in size to avoid getting punches and dies mixed. 

All work with large holes is scrutinized very closely by the inspectors and 
much of it is held up for more careful measuring. This greatly delays the 
shopwork, even when no rejections result. 

In this letter Mr. Pittman states as a reason for his action that— 

The trouble and expense we incurred in our experience with larger holes 
under contract 4861 convinces us that no possible saving in cost of erection can 
compensate for the loss of material, the rejection at shops, and the increased 
cost of shopwork. 

The Contractor now claims, as has heretofore been shown, that 
the increased expense in the field, which is traceable to punching 
of smaller holes than required in the specifications, amounted to 
between $600,000 and $700,000. The entire departmental shop labor 
cost was $474,161.54. If we add to this the general expense and loss 
due to rejected material, all of the expense of fabricating the lock- 
gate material in the shops at Rankin was considerably less than 
$1,000,000. If the claim of the Contractor as to the effect of the 
small holes on the work in the field is even approximately correct, 
it shows how little the manager of the McClintic-Marshall Construc¬ 
tion Co.’s plan at Rankin knew about the class of work that was 
required in the field on the lock-gate material. It is also to be noted 
that this letter was sent to Mr. Marshall, president of the company, 
Mr. McClintic, vice president of the company, Mr. Wolfel, the chief 
engineer of the company, and Mr. Jewel, manager of erection of the 
company, and so far as the records show, no further action, at least 
in a way that would produce any results, was taken. 

From the testimony of Mr. Goldmark, it now appears that he 
never thought it was necessary to have the holes for the 1-inch 
rivets punched smaller than seven-eighths inch. 

The part of the testimony of Mr. Goldmark quoted above (pp. 
314 and 315 of this report) is considered in the testimony of Mr. 
Pendergrass (p. 96, vol. 15). A part of the testimony of Mr. Gold- 
mark quoted above (p. 39 of his testimony) was quoted in the 
testimony of Mr. Pendergrass, but the following (p. 39 of Mr. 
Goldmark’s testimony) was omitted: 

I am perfectly willing to confess that I did not realize that it would make 
so much trouble in bolting up as it did, but I certainly never protested. I al¬ 
ways thought that the punching of those small holes was unnecessary, at least 
I always thought that the punching of the small holes for 1-inch rivets was 
unnecessary, and I still think so. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


277 


The following paragraph in Mr. Goldmark’s testimony was erro¬ 
neously quoted, so that it read: 

r l he punching of the eleven-sixteenths-inch holes for seven-eighths-inch 
rivets was only a decrease in the size of one-sixteenth inch, and I always 
thought that was necessary until the change was made to the larger holes. 

What Mr. Goldmark did say was: 

The punching of the eleven-sixteenths-inch holes for seven-eighths-inch rivets 
was only a decrease in size of one-sixteenth inch, and I always thought that 
was necessary until the change was made back to the larger hoies. 

The following statement was also made by Mr. Goldmark in con¬ 
nection with the statement quoted above: 

Then it was reported to me that they simply could not get good results with 
the larger holes in the shop even, and, while I have never been able to under¬ 
stand, I gradually came to the conclusion that there was something peculiar 
about this work which required the small holes. 

After this part of the testimony of Mr. Goldmark had been read 
by Mr. Wolfel he asked Mr. Pendergrass: 

Now, you remember after a while we built for the Isthmian Canal Commission 
the dock gates, our contract 6173? 

Mr. Pendergrass. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wolfel. The construction of the skin of the dock gates follows the con¬ 
struction of the skin in the lock gates? 

Mr. Pendergrass. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wolfel. We have the seven-eighths inch rivets above the air chamber in 
the downstream side and the 1-inch rivets on the upstream side in the air 
chamber; is that right? 

Mr. Pendergrass. Yes, sir; I think that for that part of the work there were 
new designs furnished, but the typical drawings for the lock gates were used. 

Mr. Wolfel. Well, but you had the layouts that showed the general arrange¬ 
ment required? 

Mr. Pendergrass. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wolfel. Can you tell us by whom they were prepared or submitted? 

Mr. Pendergrass. They were submitted by Mr. Henry Goldmark and Mr. 
F. H. Cook, designing engineers. 

Mr. Wolfel. Now, for these particular gates what size holes did you punch 
in the skin in the shop? 

Mr. Pendergrass. Eleven-sixteenths inch, in accordance with circular 725, 
being the specifications for that work. In paragraph- 

Judge Harrah (interposing). What is the date of that circular? 

Mr. Pendergrass. The circular is dated August 13, 1912, for one mitering 
dock gate, two leaves, Washington order 35042. 

Mr. Wolfel. I wish you would read that first portion of paragraph 31 in the 
record, page 8. 

Mr. Pendergrass (reading). “Rivet holes in all material over three-fourths 
inch thick shall be drilled from the solid; in material under three-fourths inch 
thick they may be punched; all holes shall be at least one-eighth inch smaller 
than the nominal size of rivet for shop-driven rivets and eleven-sixteenths inch 
diameter for holes in which the rivets will be driven in the field.” 

Mr. Wolfel. Well, this was followed especially for the interior connections, 
was it not? 

Mr. Pendergrass. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wolfel. And how were they gotten out? 

Mr. Pendergrass. The holes for the frames were reamed to templet in the 
shop. 

Mr. Wolfel. The same as for the lock gates? 

Mr. Pendergrass. The same as for the lock gates. 

Mr. Wolfel. That is all I have about that. 

The action of Mr. Goldmark under the dock-gate contract, re¬ 
quiring all field holes in which rivets would be driven in the. field 
to be eleven-sixteenths inch in diameter, was perfectly consistent 



278 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


with his statement that “he gradually came to the conclusion that 
there was something peculiar about this work which required the 
small holes.” It also shows how important it was for the Contractor, 
if he was being injured by the small holes in the field work to the 
extent that he now claims, to have made his claim under the contract 
for the change in the specifications and to have pointed out in what 
way the cost was being increased, so as to have given a basis for 
future action. It is entirely probable that if this had been done the 
situation in connection with the small holes would have been radi¬ 
cally changed. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to conclude that the 
primary responsibility for a considerable portion of the increased 
expense due to a change in the specifications as to the size of the 
holes rests with the Contractor and was caused by his failure to 
observe the very important provision in the contract relative to pre¬ 
senting claims for extra compensation in case of change at the time 
of the change. 

One-half of whatever excess expense was caused by the change in 
the specifications as to the size of the holes will therefore be charged 
to the Contractor, and the amount to be deducted from the actual 
expenses in determining the normal in the way in which it is de¬ 
termined on page 75 of the Contractor’s claim will be reduced by 
one-half. 

The table below shows the various items in the estimate made 
by Mr. S. P. Mitchell on a tonnage of 58,170, the total cost of each 
item, cost per ton of each item, cost per leaf, the number of field 
rivets, cost per field rivet or hole, number of square-feet surface in 
end plates, and number of linear feet of end plates. 


S. P. Mitchell's estimate of Sept. 16, 1011/, on erection (labor). 
[Assumed total tonnage, 58,170.] 


Item 

No. 


Total 

cost. 

Cost 

per 

ton. 

Cost 

per 

leaf 

(92 

leaves). 

Num¬ 

ber 

field 

rivets. 

Cost 

per 

field 

rivet 

or 

hole. 

Square 
feet 
surface 
in end 
plates. 

Linear 
feet of 
end 
plates. 

1 

Yard labor. 

$46,800 

$0. 804 

$508.00 

5,730 


21,850 

10,702 

2 

Erection bridges. 

15,400 

.264 

167.50 


3 

Temporary supports. 

32,200 

.551 

350 00 





4 

Erecting gates. 

312.000 

5.3G0 

3,392 00 





5 

Bolting up. 

260,000 

4.470 

2.625.00 

5,730 

$0. 0454 



6 

Reaming. 

208 000 

3. 570 

2,260.00 

5,730 

. 0363 



7 

Riveting. 

458,400 

7.870 

4,990.00 

5,730 

.0810 



8 

Calking. 

81.600 

1.400 

887.00 



9 

Grinding B. P. and setting R. C.. 

64.400 

1.105 

700 00 





10 

Setting and babbitting S. B. P... 

58,000 

.996 

631.00 





11 

Placing pintles and yo .es and set¬ 









ting leaves on pintles. 

46,000 

.790 

500 00 





12 

Placing wooden sills and tenders. 

5,300 

.091 

57.60 





13 

Placing concrete in bottom gates. 

4,500 

.077 

48 80 





14 

Placing piping, etc., pumping sys¬ 









tem. 

13,800 

.237 

150.00 





15 

Placing sidewalks and railings .... 

8,200 

.141 

89.20 





16 

Placing manhole covers and doors 

10,600 

.182 

115 20 





17 

Cleaningand painting (2coatsR. S. 









outside onlv).. 

65.000 

1.115 

707. 00 





18 

Field expenses. 

150,000 

2.580 

1,630.00 





Total. 

1,840,200 i 

31.640 j 



| ' 




1 







This table only takes into consideration the labor items and the 
part of field expenses as is considered belongs to labor items. 
















































McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION" CO. 


279 


If this estimate should be increased as shown on page 2G5 of this 
report, and the $150,000 for field expenses and this increase dis¬ 
tributed pro rata among the various items, it would amount to an 
increase in each item of 27.25 per cent. If this percentage of in¬ 
crease should be applied to the item for bolting up it would make 
the normal cost of that item $5.69 per ton. 

The actual cost of bolting up at Miraflores was $8.64 a ton, ex¬ 
clusive of the amount claimed for rush work. Five dollars and sixty- 
nine cents a ton deducted from $8.64 a ton would leave the excess 
$2.95 a ton. If this should be taken as the excess cost per ton for 
bolting up with small bolts and one-half of it charged to the Con¬ 
tractor, it would make the deduction to be made from the actual ex¬ 
penses in establishing a normal (p. 75 of the claim) for the bolting 
up $26,184.20. 

In coming to the conclusion that the responsibility for the results 
in the field and extra expenses in connection with bolting up with 
small bolts should be divided, full consideration has been given to 
the numerous protests made by the Contractor against the use of 
small holes. (See testimony of Mr. Wolfel, pp. 219 to 232, inclusive.) 

That the responsible officers of the Contractor were advised by 
their manager in the field of the extra cost of erection due to a change 
in the size of the holes, is shown by the following letter from Mr. 
Jewel to Mr. H. H. McClintic dated August 15, 1911, Exhibit No. 69 
of Mr. Wolf el’s testimony, volume 7: 

Do you not think that it is a serious mistake to ship this work with the holes 
subpunched eleven-sixteenths diameter? I wrote you when this question first 
came up that I thought it was wrong, and there is no question but it will cost 
more money here in the erection, and I can not see why three-sixteenths inch 
smaller than the diameter of the rivets to be used would not give the shop all 
the necessary leeway. It will certainly be a job to assemble all our work and 
fit it using only five-eighths and one-half inch bolts. 

To-morrow I will have a meeting with the chairman in reference to program 
of erection and will write you the result immediately. I do not believe it will 
be possible to make up all our lost time with only two erection outfits and un¬ 
less we get an entire revision on the completion dates, I am afraid the question 
of penalty will be troublesome. 

Yet, notwithstanding this knowledge and these facts, no claim for 
increased compensation due to such damage was ever made by the 
Contractor, neither did he at any time during the entire consideration 
of the claim for delays point out delays or attempt to obtain addi¬ 
tional time because of the delays resulting from a change in the size 
of the holes, as he was bound to do under the terms of the contract. 

It would be neither fair, just, nor equitable for him now to be re¬ 
imbursed for all of the very large expenditures resulting from the 
fabrication of the work with the small holes, when in all probability 
if a very feeble attempt on his part had been made to observe very 
important provisions of the contract, requiring him to submit claims 
for extras when changes in the specifications were made, the work 
would have been done under entirely different conditions. 

There is no way of checking, absolutely, the excess cost of bolting 
up and it is believed that the excess shown on page 322 of this report 
represents as nearly as can be arrived at the part that should be 
charged exclusively to the action of the Commission or further 
divided between the Commission and the Contractor if the final ex¬ 
amination of the claim as a whole should justify such action. In 


280 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


other words, the excess shown represents only such part of the 
claimed excess as it is considered, under any circumstances, should be 
allowed, the remainder of the claimed excess being eliminated from 
further consideration. 

REAMING-HAND AND MACHINE. 

Punching the holes smaller than provided for in the specifications 
affected the cost of the reaming. The claim of the Contractor as to 
the way the cost of reaming was affected, so far as Miraflores is con¬ 
cerned, is stated on page 75 of the claim, as follows: 

(c) Reaming out the small holes K one-fourtli of $53,070, $13,267.50. 

The way in which the amount of the claimed excess for reaming is 
arrived at is shown on pages 77 and 78 of the claim, as follows: 

(c) Reaming out the small holes. —Based on the same proportion of different- 
sized holes of 2 to 5, given under “ b,” the explanation for this is as follows: 

The metal we should have reamed out, if the specifications had been followed 
for the holes for the 1 -inch rivets and seven-eigliths-incli rivets, are as follows: 


Square 

inch. 

lia-inch holes area_ 0 . SS 66 

Seven-eigliths-inch holes area_ . 6013 


. 2S53 

Fifteen-sixteenths-inch holes area_ . 6903 

Three-fourth-inch holes area_ . 4418 


.2485 

The metal actually reamed out, however, is: 

I iVinch holes area_0. 8 S 66 

Eleven-sixteentlis-inch holes area_ . 3712 


. 5154 


Fifteen-sixteenths-inch holes area_ . 6903 

Eleven-sixteenths-incli holes area_ . 3712 


. 3191 

Therefore the proportion of the excess reaming to the normal reaming can 


be established. 

Square 

Normal reaming: inch. 

2X0. 2S53 equals_ 0. 5706 

5X0.2485 equals_ 1.2425 


1. 8131 


Actual reaming: 

2X0. 5154 equals_ 1 . 0308 

5X0. 3191 equals- 1 . 5955 


2. 6263 

This shows that the Contractor actually reamed in the field 45 per cent more 
than he should have reamed under the specifications, or that 31 per cent of the 
reaming that was done in the field was in excess of the specifications. Making 
allowance for tfie time consumed in moving the tools from one bole to the other, 
the Contractor therefore claims that he should be compensated for the one- 
quarter of the total cost of this field reaming of $53,070, or $13,267.50. 


























McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


281 


It appears from this statement that no part of the excess cost 
for reaming resulted from any unreasonable inspection demands 
in the field in connection with the reaming. The entire excess cost 
is arrived at by comparing the amount of metal that should have 
been reamed out, if the specifications had been followed, with the 
amount of metal that was reamed out under the specifications as 
changed. The calculation is based upon the assumption that the 
actual removal of the metal from the smaller holes would cost as 
much as the removal of a like quantity of material from the larger 
holes. As the tools would not have to be moved any more for ream¬ 
ing the smaller holes than for the larger holes, the Contractor makes 
an allowance for his ability to remove more metal from the smaller 
holes with less moving. His final conclusion is that the cost of 
field reaming was increased 33J per cent over what it would have 
been if the size of the holes had been punched as provided for in 
the specifications. 

The basis upon which the Contractor arrives at the comparative 
cost for reaming out the holes of the different sizes is shown in 
the following equation: 

Let X equal time that would have been spent in reaming out 
large holes. 

Let Y equal time spent in moving from hole to hole. 

Let Z equal time spent in reaming out small holes. 

133JX 133^-Y _ 145 X + Y. 

100 + 100 100 


Multiplying by 300: 400X+400 Y=435X+300 Y. 

Subtracting: 100 Y = 35 X 
y _35X 
1 100 

Y:X+Y: :35:135. 

Y=26 per cent of X+Y. 

- 145 X 

100 

Y: Z: : 35:145. 

Y:Z+Y: :35:180. 

Y=19.4 per cent of Z+Y. 

From this equation it appears that the Contractor bases his cal¬ 
culations upon the assumption that 19.4 per cent of the total time 
would be consumed in moving the reamer. The calculations are also 
based upon the theory that the same proportion of metal as com¬ 
pared with the size of the holes would be reamed out with holes 
punched in accordance with the specifications as would be reamed 
out with holes punched smaller than required under the specifica¬ 
tions. This does not take into consideration the probability that a 
greater per cent of holes punched in accordance with the specifica¬ 
tions would be required to be reamed out to the next larger size 
than if the holes had been punched smaller. That this is an element 
that should be taken into consideration is shown from the report ot 







282 


McCLTNTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


Mr. Guynn made December 15, 1914, found in volume 33-A of the 
evidence. On page 7 of this report Mr. Guynn states, paragraph 6: 

That there were a large number of unfair holes in the sheathing, doubling, 
and cover plates, especially at the curved ends, caused a large number of holes 
to be reamed on all sorts of angles, some of which were practically blind and 
had to be reamed to an increased size, and even then they failed to clean up 
in the chord angles, so much so that it was necessary to drive the rivets from 
the inside of the leaf instead of from the outside. 

It is self-evident that the nearer the holes are punched to the final 
size of the rivets, if the same percentage of holes are to be made to 
clean up, the greater will be the probability or necessity of reaming 
out holes for the next larger size of rivet. In fact, a very large part 
of the contention in connection with the reduction in the size of the 
holes revolved around the proposition that, in order to get fair holes 
with punching in accordance with the sizes called for in the speci¬ 
fications, too many holes would have to be reamed out for the next 
larger size of rivet. (See statement of Mr. John Ostrom, p. 71 of 
this report.) To ream out for the next larger size of rivet would 
increase the amount of metal to be removed, and any condition that 
would tend to increase the number of unfair holes would tend to 
increase the amount of reaming to the next larger size of rivet and 
would tend to destroy the accuracy of any comparison based on an 
asssumption that the amount of reaming for the next larger size 
rivet would be uniform, regardless of the size of the subpunched 
holes. 

Mr. Guynn’s statement, above quoted, is corroborated by the anal¬ 
ysis of cost of reaming on the 54-foot 8-inch leaves that were punched 
in accordance with the specifications. The cost of reaming the 54-foot 
8-inch leaves at Gatun, not including salaries and special No. 21, was 
$5.87 per ton. The cost of reaming the 54-foot 8-inch leaves at Pedro 
Miguel, not including salaries and special No. 21, was $4.67 per ton. 
The cost per ton for reaming at Miraflores, exclusive of rush work 
and exclusive of special No. 21 and salaries, was $2.72. The price 
per ton at Gatun for 54-foot 8-inch leaves was $5.87. If we reduce 
this by the percentage of rush work assumed at Miraflores it would 
leave $4.96 per ton. If this is further reduced to take care of the 50 
per cent increase allowed on the first eight leaves at Gatun, the in¬ 
crease for beginning shown on page 85 of the Contractor’s claim, it 
would give $3.30 as the cost per ton for reaming the 54-foot 8-inch 
leaves at Gatun. The cost per ton at Pedro Miguel for reaming the 
54-foot 8-inch leaves was $4.67. If this was reduced by the per¬ 
centage of rush work, it would leave $3.94 a ton for reaming. If 
this is further reduced by 30 per cent for erecting the first leaves as 
shown on page 85 of the Contractor’s claim, it Avould give $3 per ton 
as the cost for reaming the 54-foot 8-inch leaves at Pedro Miguel. 

This shows that the cost of reaming at Gatun and Pedro Miguel, 
on the leaves that had been punched in accordance with the specifi¬ 
cations, after reducing the cost by the percentage of rush work and 
by the percentage necessary to take care of the increase for beginning 
the work, was greater than it was at Miraflores. 

Several conclusions might be drawn from this. If we assume that 
sufficient allowance has been made to cover all abnormal conditions 
at Gatun and Pedro Miguel, it would show that the estimated normal 
at Miraflores was entirely too low. It might also indicate that the 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


283 


punching on the first eight leaves under the original specifications 
was not as accurately done as it was later when they were using the 
steel templets. It also might indicate that the cost per ton for 
reaming subpunched hole., of different sizes with relation to the size 
of the rivet to be used can not, with any degree of certainty, be com¬ 
pared with the amount of metal to be removed from the respective 
holes. It might also indicate that the reaming at Miraflores was not 
affected to the same extent on account of the rush work as were other 
parts of the work. It might also indicate that the calculations as to 
the effect of the rush work on the expenses of doing the work was too 
great, as stated in the claim of the contractor, page 75. 

Whatever may be the correct conclusions to be drawn from the 
facts stated above, they do raise a fairly strong presumption against 
the Contractor’s claim that the reaming was increased 33^ per cent 
over what it should have been by the use of smaller holes. 

Mr. Mitchell’s estimate for reaming was $3.57 per ton. 

It does not seem that the normal cost for reaming under the 
original specifications, making due allowance for the great accuracy 
in the punching that was shown after making the steel templets, 
should be fixed at less than $2.72 per ton. 

At $2.72 per ton for reaming at Miraflores, the cost would have 
been $18,285. The actual cost for reaming, exclusive of the rush 
work, was $53,070, making the difference between the actual cost and 
the normal, if fixed at $2.72, $4,785—the amount to be deducted 
from the actual cost at Miraflores, exclusive of rush work, in estab¬ 
lishing the normal as shown on page 75 of the claim. 

For the reason given under the item of bolting up, the Contractor 
should be required to bear one-half of the expense because of his 
failure to observe the provisions of the contract and submit a claim 
for increased expenses at the time, and under conditions when such 
expenses might have been avoided. This would leave the amount to 
be deducted from the actual cost at Miraflores, on account of reaming, 
to establish a tonnage price, exclusive of rush work, $2,392.50. (See 
p. 75 of the Contractor’s claim.) 

The above sum seems too small and it is believed that the Con¬ 
tractor will be required to bear his proportion of the probable ex¬ 
cess cost by fixing the amount to be deducted at $4,785. The above 
figures show that at least this much of a reduction in the claim is 
justified. 

riveting. 


On page 49 of the Contractor’s claim he states, among other 
things: 

Fourth. That the Commission’s inspectors on the Isthmus were unreasonable 
in their requirements. 


On the same page he states: 


We give below a statement of some of the important and unreasonable de¬ 
mands made by the inspectors on the Isthmus : . 

“(a) The Contractor was obliged to cut out, redrive, and waste 1,561,000 
rivets over and above the number which would customarily be cut out, re- 
driven, and wasted on high-class bridge or structural work As the cost of 
cnttin" out rivets is greater than driving them, and the cost of redriving these 
rivets is very much greater than the original cost of driving, it is readily seen 
that the delay and additional cost from this source was enormous. 


284 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


These are the only two parts of the statement on this page which 
relate to riveting. 

On pages 51, 52, and 53 of the claim the contentions the Contractor 
makes in relation to unreasonable rivet inspection are stated, and 
for easy reference these are quoted below: 

No difference can be shown between the specifications for high-grade bridge 
work now being constructed in this country and the specifications for the 
lock gates as regards fieldwork, but when a comparison is made between the 
actual field requirements for high-grade structural or bridge work and the 
requirements for the lock gates as enforced at the Isthmus, a great difference 
is apparent. 

One of the big jobs in connection with the erection of the canal gates on the 
Isthmus was the driving of rivets—about 5,730,000 being required in the work. 
In high-grade bridge work constructed by the Contractor, like the cantilever 
bridge for the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad over the Ohio River at Beaver, 
Pa., amounting to about 10,000 tons of structural steel; and the Winner Bridge 
over the Missouri River, at Kansas City, Mo., requiring about 18,000 tons of 
structural steel, the rejections by the inspectors of the number of rivets driven 
compared with that of the lock gates shows a very high degree of refinement 
in the requirements for the lock gates—almost beyond conception as compared 
with bridge work. 

The condemnation of the number of rivets driven in the field for the canti¬ 
lever bridge over the Ohio River at Beaver was about 2* per cent of the total 
number driven, and in the Winner Bridge at Kansas City, over the Missouri 
River, about 31 per cent of the total number of rivets driven. 

Under the most severe inspection on high-grade bridge work contractors in 
estimating consider that the rejections will never run over 5 per cent. Never 
are more than 10 per cent excess field rivets provided in any contract to cover 
both rejections and losses, and a liberal portion of these rivets are as a rule 
returned to the shop. For the lock gates there were actually used up over 
7,805,000 field rivets, an excess of over 2,135,000 field rivets, or about 37.25 
per cent over and above the 5,730,000 that actually were required for the fin¬ 
ished leaves—an appalling proposition to the Contractor who had to do the 
work. 

Mr. J. O. Childers, general superintendent for the Contractor on the Isthmus 
from about September 1, 1912, to the finish of the work, and who also had charge 
of the erection of the cantilever bridge at Beaver, Pa., and the Winner Bridge 
over the Missouri River at Kansas City, both previously referred to, in a signed 
statement says: 

“ The inspection on riveting at Gatun and to a certain extent at Pedro Miguel 
was the most rigid I ever experienced. In other words, on first inspection, 
nothing but a perfect rivet would be passed. Hundreds of thousands of rivets 
were cut out which would have answered every requirement on any other job. 
In many cases good rivets were cut out and redriven so often that the plates 
were damaged, and the rivets finally accepted were inferior to those first 
driven.” 

Mr. Charles Welker, superintendent at Pedro Miguel for the Contractor, 
states: 

“ Riveting was much higher (meaning cost) on account of inspection. A 
rivet out of line one-fourth inch had to be cut out, or one that had been marked 
with a maul in cutting out others; or one that had a trifle too much stock, or if 
the inspector imagined he felt a jar, he would not pass it. In cutting out the 
rivets it bends and jars the iron and loosens other good rivets around them, 
which finally had to come out and be redriven. If in reaming the holes (out¬ 
side and inside these did not match) or if it left a hole a little out of round 
in the outside sheathing which could easily be filled with a rivet, it would 
not be passed. The hole had to be drilled out to a perfect hole and a large 
rivet used to fill the hole. In some cases it was necessary to have the black¬ 
smith make a rivet large enough to fill such holes. The inspection was just 
as stiff above the water-tight compartments as below.” 

Mr. Grant Courter, for a while superintendent for the Contractor at Pedro 
Miguel, states: 

“ On account of the severe inspection of the rivets by the inspectors, who in 
my opinion were prejudiced against the negroes, and cut out rivets that were 
positively good, in order to make our company put on all white shipyard riveters, 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


285 


we were compelled to keep a force of men cutting out rivets all the time, which 
made the rivets cost 30 cents apiece instead of from 5 to 7 cents, as on all high- 
class structural work. 

Ihe way in which the Contractor undertakes to establish the ex¬ 
cess cost for riveting is shown on pages 78, 79, 80, and 81 of the claim. 
This statement is so important in its relation to this claim that it is 
quoted in full below: 

(e) Excess riveting. In the finished leaves are 5,730,000 rivets that have been 
driven in the field. To do this the Contractor has used up at the Isthmus 
7,702,000 rivets—an excess of 35.46. Four per cent, or 230,000 rivets, will be 
allowed for rivets burned or lost, and 0 per cent, or 344,000 rivets, conceded for 
rivets cut out under normal inspection. On the basis given above, 10 per cent 
are conceded as a normal loss, which is the total excess rivets shipped on all 
bridge contracts, of which excess, however, as a rule, a liberal portion is re¬ 
turned to the works. 

It is a well-established fact that it costs over one and one-half times to two 
times as much to cut out a rivet than it coss to drive it originally, and that the 
redriving of the cut-out rivets costs about the same as the cutting out. 

Based on these assumptions, and on the actual cost of riveting at the three 
sites, the following table has been prepared in which table “ X ” represents the 
cost of the original driving. 


[Cutting out and redriving=3 x. Cost of original driving x=5.89 cents per rivet.] 


Location. 

Net 

number 
of field 
rivets 
required. 

Cost of riveting. 

Field rivets cut out. 

Actual. 

Normal. 

Excess. 

Total. 

Per 

cent. 

Excess. 

Total. 

Per 

rivet. 

Total. 

Per 

rivet. 

Total. 

Per 

cent. 

Total. 

Per 

cent. 




Cents. 


Cents. 







Gatun. 

2,508,000 

8313,000 

12.48 8174,300 

6.95 8138,700 

79.5 

934,600 

37.2 

784,000 

31.2 

Piviro Miguel. 

1,476,000 

175,000 

11.86 

102,600 

6.95 

72,400 

70.5 

497,600 

33.8 

409.000 

27.8 

Mi/aflores. 

1,746,000 

168,150 

9.63 

121,300 

6.95 

46,850 

38.6 

369,800 

21.2 

265,000 

15.2 

Total. 

5,730,000 

656.150 

11.45 

398,200 

6. 95 

257,950 

64.8j 1,802,000 

31.4| 1,458,000 

25.4 


[Cutting out and rednving=4 x. Cost of original driving x=5.07 cents per rivet.] 


Gatun. 

2,508,000 

8313,000 
175,000 
16S,150 

12.48 

$157,800 
92,800 

6.29 I S155.200 

98.5 

915,600 

36.5 

765,000 
405,000 
288,000 

30.5 

Pedro Miguel. 

l'476'000 

11.86 

6.29 

82; 200 
58,350 

88.8 

493', 600 

33.4 

27.4 

Miraflores. 

l' 746' 000 

9.63 

109,800 

6.29 

53.1 

392; 800 

22.6 

16.6 




Total. 

5,730,000 

656,150 

11.45 

360,400 

6.29 

295,750 

81.9 

1,802,000 

31.4 

1,458,000 

25.4 




From this table it will be seen that the actual cost of a finished rivet in 
the leaf is at Miraflores, 9.03 cents; at Pedro Miguel, 11.86 cents; at Gatun, 
12.48 cents; the average, 11.54 cents. 

That there was cut out at Miraflores from 369,800 to 392,800 rivets, or from 
21.2 to 22.6 per cent. 

At Pedro Miguel from 493,600 to 497,600 rivets, or from 33.4 to 33.8 per cent. 

At Gatun from 915,600 to 934,600 rivets, or from 36.5 to 37.2 per cent. 

A total cut out of 1,802,000 rivets, or 31.4 per cent. 

That the excess cut out over the 6 per cent permissible under normal inspec¬ 
tion was, at Miraflores, from 15.2 to 16.6 per cent; at Pedro Miguel, from 27.4 
to 27.8 per cent; at Gatun, from 30.5 to 31.2 per cent; or an average of 25.4 
per cent. 

That the money the Contractor had to spend over and above what he should 
have spent under normal inspection amounted to $46,850 to $58,350, or 38.6 to 
53.1 per cent at Miraflores; $72,400 to $82,200, or 70.5 to 88.8 per cent at Pedro 
Miguel, and $138,700 to $155,200, or 79.5 to 98.5 per cent at Gatun. 

These percentages are based on the amount that should have been spent 
under normal inspection (100 per cent). 



















































286 


McCLINTIC-MARSTIALL CONSTRUCTION CO 


The Contractor claims that this riveting could and should have been done 
for from ,$360,400 to $398,200, while it actually cost him $656,150, an excess 
of from $257,950 to $295,750, or 64.8 to 81.9 per cent, and that this large extra 
expense is due to the extreme and unreasonable inspection under which the 
Contractor had to execute this contract. 

The Contractor draws special attention to the comparative showing of the 
costs and the number of rivets cut out at the three lock sites, which is a 
clear indication of the degree of unreasonableness of the inspection at the 
three sites. 

The Contractor claims that the Commission, on account of the unreasonable 
action of their inspectors at Miraflores, in cutting out rivets to an extent never 
heard of before, should reimburse him for the average amount established in 
the table, which is $46,850 plus $58,350, divided by 2, or $52,600. 

The Contractor’s reference to the testimony, on which he relies in 
support of his claim that the inspectors on the Isthmus were unrea¬ 
sonable in their requirements as to the rivet inspection, is found on 
pages 108 to 116, inclusive, of his brief. 

With relation to the inspection in general he cites the following: 


Testimony of. 

Vol¬ 

ume. 

Pages. 

Mr. Goldmark.. 

8 

112, 130, 132, and 194 to 197. 

Mr. Sterrett_ 

9 

24 to 27, 38 and 39. 

Mr. Courter. 

16 

25 to 27, 33, 64, 66, 68, 107, 
109 to 112, 119, and 120. 

Mr. Hess. 

17 

32, 35, 39, 40, 42, 45, 52, 53, 
and 75. 

Mr. Morse. 

19 

3, 13, 14, 15, 17 to 19. 

Mr. Galloway... 

23 

76, 77, 79, S3, 86 to 91. 

Mr. Jervey. 

24 

16 and 17. 

Mr. Childers_ 

32 

52, 53, 60, 61, 258, 259, and 
265. 

Mr. Howe. 

32 

77 and 81. 

Mr. Dumville... 

32 

93 to 96, 100 and 101. 

Mr. Wright. 

32 

129, 130, 133, 134. 

Mr. Guynn. 

32 

171 to 175, 181, 182, 190, 195 
to 199, 202. 

Mr. Nutting_ 

32 

244. 

Mr. Connor. 

35 

5, 6, 17, and 20. 

Mr. Mellon. 

35 

39, 45. 

Mr. Roberts_ 

35 

52. 

Mr. Wright. 

36 

10, 11, 15 to 17, 22. 

Mr. Monniche.. 

Causes of cut¬ 
outs. 

37 

18 and 19. 

Mr. Goldmark.. 

1 

71 (report). 

Do. 

8 

124, 134, 147 to 152, 154, 155 
to 158, 230 to 233, 237. 

Mr. Sterrett_ 

9 

36. 

Mr. Courter. 

16 

25, 30. 

Mr. Hess. 

17 

40, 44, 46. 

Mr. Morse. 

19 

30. 

Mr. Galloway... 

23 

82 to 84. 

Mr. Childers_ 

32 

52, 53, 63, 259 and 263. 

Mr. Howe. 

32 

72, 84. 

96 to 99, 101, 115. 

Mr. Dumville... 

32 

Mr. Wright. 

32 

129, 133. 

Mr. Guvnn. 

32 

174, 176. 

Mr. Connor. 

35 

3, 8, 15. 

Mr. Mellon. 

35 

45. 

Mr. Roberts_ 

35 

50 and 51. 

Mr. Wright. 

36 

15. 

Mr. Dumville... 

36 

30. 


Testimony of. 

Vol¬ 

ume. 

Pages. 

Number of cut¬ 
outs. 



Mr. Goldmark.. 

1 

68 (report). 

Do. 

8 

126, 127, 135, 141, 143. 

Mr. Courter. 

16 

25, 64, 65. 

Mr. Hess. 

17 

33, 35, 39, 43, 77. 

Mr. Galloway... 

23 

78, 79, 81. 

53, 258. 

Mr. Childers_ 

32 

Mr. Howe. 

32 

72. 

Mr. Dumville... 

32 

96, 116, 119, 120. 

Mr. Wright. 

32 

129, 130. 

Mr. Guvnn. 

32 

171 to 174. 

Mr. Connor. 

35 

6 to 16. 

Mr. Mellon. 

35 

46. 

Mr. Roberts.. 

35 

50. 

Mr. Hinman_ 

36 

5. 

Mr. Wright. 

36 

10. 

Rivets lost or 
wasted. 



Mr. Goldmark.. 

8 

135, 136, 237. 

Mr. Sterrett_ 

9 

28, 29. 

Mr. Courter. 

16 

118. 

Mr. Hess. 

17 

47. 

Mr. Guynn. 

32 

173, 205. 

Cost of driving 
rivets. 



Mr. Childers_ 

32 

60. 

Mr. Wright. 

36 

10. 

Cost of cutting 



out and re- 



driving. 



Mr. Hess. 

17 

35, 39, 41. 

Mr. Howe. 

32 

83. 

Mr. Wright. 

32 

141. 


Before considering the evidence in detail a short analysis of the 
table on page 285 will be made, showing what it means in time and 
expense in connection with various operations on the assumptions 
used in the preparation of this table. 


























































McC LIN TIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


287 


The tables below indicate the conditions that existed if the as¬ 
sumptions of the Contractor in his tables are correct: 


Gatim: 

Cost of driving rivets accepted at the first driving, 1,573,400 

rivets, at $0.0589-$92, 673. 26 

Cost of driving G per cent, cut-outs allowed, 150,600 rivets, at 

$0.2356- 35, 481. 36 

Cost of original driving, excess cut-outs, 784,000 rivets, at 
$0.0589- 46,177. 60 


Total admitted cost_ 174 , 332 . 22 

Cost to cut out and redrive, excess claimed, 7S4,000 rivets, at 
$0.1767-.-- 13S, 532. SO 


Total actual cost_ 312, 865. 02 


Cost to drive, cut out, and redrive all cut-outs, 934,600 rivets, 

at $0.2356- 220,191. 76 

Cost of driving rivets accepted at the first driving, 1,573,400 

rivets, at $0.0589_ 92,673.26 


Total actual cost_-_ 312, 865. 02 


Pedro Miguel: 

Cost of driving rivets accepted at the first driving, 97S,400 

rivets, at $0.0589_ 57,727.76 

Cost of driving 6 per cent, cut-outs allowed, SS,600 rivets, nt 

$0.2356__ 20, 874.16 

Cost of original driving, excess cut-outs, 409,000. rivets, at 
$0.0589__ 24, 090.10 


Total admitted cost_ 102, 692. 02 

Cost to cut out and redrive, excess claimed, 409,000 rivets, at 
$0.1767_ 72, 270. 30 


Total actual cost_ 174, 962. 32 


Cost to drive, cut out, and redrive all cut-outs, 497,600 rivets, 

at $0.2356__ 117,234.56 

Cost of driving rivets accepted at the first driving, 978,400 

rivets, at $0.0589- 57, 727. 76 


Total actual cost- 174, 962. 32 


Miraflores: 

Cost of driving rivets accepted at the first driving, 1,376,200 

rivets, at $0.0589___ 81, 057. 18 

Cost of driving 6 per cent, cut-outs allowed, 104,800 rivets, at 

$0.2356 _ 24,690.88 

Cost of original driving, excess cut-outs, 265,000 rivets, at 
$0.0589 _ 15, 608. 50 


Total admitted cost- 121, 356. 56 

Cost to cut out and redrive, excess claimed, 265,000 rivets, 

at $0.1767_ 46,825.50 


Total actual cost-168,182. 06 


at $0.2356__ 87 > l 24 - 

Cost of driving rivets accepted at the first driving, 1,376,200 

rivets, at $0.0589— --- 81> 65 <. 18 


Total actual cost 


168,182. 06 
















































288 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO 


Based on the second table of the Contractor and the assumption 
that the original driving cost was $0.0507, and to cut out and redrive 
would cost four times as much as the original driving, we would have 
the following results: 

Gatun: 

Cost of driving rivets accepted at the first driving, 1,582,400 

rivets, at $0.0507_$S0, 227. 68 

Cost of driving 6 per cent, cut-outs allowed, 150,GOO rivets, at 

$0.2535 _ 38,177.10 

Cost of original driving, excess cut-outs, 765,000 rivets, at 
$0.0507 _ 3S, 785. 50 


Total admitted cost_ 157,190. 28 

Cost to cut out and redrive, excess claimed, 765,000 rivets, at 
$0.202S_ 155, 142. 00 


Total actual cost_ 312, 332. 28 


Cost to drive, cut out and redrive all cut-outs, 915,600 rivets, 

at $0.2535_ 232,104. 60 

Cost of driving rivets accepted at the first driving, 1,582,400 
rivets, at $0.0507_s_ 80, 227. 68 


Total actual cost_ 312, 332. 28 


Pedro Miguel: 

Cost of driving rivets accepted at the first driving, 982,400 rivets, 

at $0.0507_ 49,807.68 

Cost of driving 6 per cent, cut-outs allowed, 8S,G00 rivets, at 

$0.2535 _1_ 22,460.10 

Cost of original driving, excess cut-outs, 40,500 rivets, at 
$0.0507 _ 20,533.50 


Total admitted cost_ 92, SOI. 28 


Total admitted cost_ 92, 801. 28 

Cost to cut out and redrive, excess claimed, 405,000 rivets, at 

$0.2028_ 82,134. 00 


Total actual cost_ 174, 935. 28 


Cost to drive, cut out, and redrive all cut-outs, 493.600 rivets, 

at $0.2535_ 125,127.60 

Cost of driving rivets accepted at the first driving, 982,400 
rivets, at $0.0507- 49, 807. 68 


Total actual cost_ 174, 935. 28 

Miraflores: 

Cost of driving rivets accepted at the first driving, 1,353,200 

rivets, at $0.0507- 68, 607. 24 

Cost of driving 6 per cent, cut-outs allowed, 104,800 rivets, at 

$0.2535- 26, 566. 80 

Cost of original driving, excess cut-outs, 288,000 rivets, at 
$0.0507- 14, 601. 60 


Total admitted cost__ 109, 775. 64 

Cost to cut out and redrive, excess claimed, 288,000 rivets, at 

$0.2028--- 58, 406. 40 


Total actual cost_ 168,182. 04 


Cost to drive, cut out, and redrive all cut-outs, 392,800 rivets, 

at $0.2535- 99,574.80 

Cost of driving rivets accepted at the first driving, 1,353,200 
rivets, at $0.0507- 68, 607. 24 

Total actual cost_168,1S2. 04 


















































McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO 


289 


If we consolidate the above tables, we get the results shown in the 
tables below: 


Table No. 1. 



Cost of 
driving 
rivets ac¬ 
cepted at 
first driv¬ 
ing. 

Cost of 
driving, 

6 per cent, 
cut-outs 
allowed. 

Cost of 
orieinal 
driving 
excess 
cut-outs. 

Cost to cut¬ 
out and 
redrive, 
excess 
claimed. 

Cost to 
drive cut¬ 
out and 
rcdrive all 
cut-outs. 

Gatlin. 

$92,673.26 
57,727.76 
81,057.18 

$35,4S1.36 
20,874.16 
24,690.88 

$46,177.60 
24,090.10 
15,608. 50 

$138,532.80 
72,270.30 
46,825.50 

$220,191.76 
117,234.56 
87,124.88 

Pedro Miguel. 

Miraflores. 

Total. 

231,458.20 

81,046.40 

85,876.20 

257,628.60 

424,551.20 

i. 



Table No. 2. 


i * 

Cost of 
dri ing 
rivets ac¬ 
cepted at 
first driv¬ 
ing. 

Cost of 
driving, 

6 per cent, 
cut-outs 
allowed. 

Cost of 
ori u'ral 
driving 
excess 
cut-outs. 

Cost to cut¬ 
out. and 
redrive, 
excess 
claimed. 

Cost to 
dri e cut¬ 
out and 
redrive all 
cut-outs. 

Gatun. 

$80,227.68 
49,807.68 
68,607.24 

$38,177.10 
22,460.10 
26,566.80 

$38,785.50 
20,333.50 
14,601.60 

$155,142.00 
82,134.00 
58,406. 40 

$232,104.60 
125,127.60 
99,574.80 

Pedro Miguel. 

Miraliores. 

Total. 

198,642. 60 

87,204.00 

73,920.60 

295,682.40 

456,807.00 



The table below shows totals of Tables 1 and 2, divided by 2: 



Cost of 
driving 
rivets ac¬ 
cepted at 
first driv¬ 
ing. 

Cost of 
driving 

6 per cent 
cut-outs 
allowed. 

Cost of 
original 
dri, ing, 
excess 
cut-outs. 

Cost to cut¬ 
out and 
redriv e, 
excess 
claimed. 

Cost to 
drive cut¬ 
out and 
redrh e all 
cut-outs. 

To^al, Table 1. 

Total, Table 2. 

Grand total. 

Divided by 2. 

$231,458.29 
1P8,642. 69 

$81,046. 40 
87,204.00 

$85,876.20 
73,920.69 

$257,628.60 
295,682.40 

$421,551.20 

456,807.00 

430,100.80 

168,250. 40 

159,796.80 

553,311.00 

881.358.20 

215,050. 40 

84,125.20 

79,898. 40 

276,655.59 

440,679.10 


The table below analyzes Tables 1 and 2 of the Contractor by show¬ 
ing the cost of original driving, assuming no cut-outs, column i; 
the cost of cutting out and redriving condemned rivets, column 2; 
and the per cent of each, respectively, columns 3 and 4: 


Table No. 1. 


■ - - --- ' ~ 

1 

2 

3 

4 


$147, 780.10 
86,936. 40 
102,957.20 

$165,143. 82 
87,925.92 
65,343. 66 

Per cent. 
47.23 
49.72 
61.18 

Per cent. 
52.77 
50.28 
38.82 




337,673.70 

318,413. 40 







29249°—H. Doc. 906, 64-1-19 













































































290 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


Table No. 2. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

Gatun. 

$127,155. 60 
74,833. 20 
88,522. 20 

*185,683. 68 
100,102.08 
79,659. 84 

Per cent. 
40.65 
42.72 
52.63 

Per cent. 
59.35 
57. 28 
47.37 

Pedro Miguel. 

Miraflores. 

Total. 

290,511.00 

365,445. 60 







The following tables show the average per cent of the cost of 
original driving and the average per cent of the cost of cutting out 
and redriving: 


Table 1: Percent. 

Cost of original driving_51. 77 

Cost of cutting out and redriving_4S. 23 

Table 2: 

Cost of original driving_44. 2S 

Cost of cutting out and redriving_55. 72 


If the costs of the original driving, Tables 1 and 2, be added 
together and divided by 2, and the costs of cutting out and redriving, 
Tables 1 and 2, be added together and divided by 2, it would show 
that the cost of original driving arrived at by this method was 47.88 
per cent, and that the cost of cutting out and redriving rivets was 
52.12 per cent of the total. 

The per cent of rush work at Miraflores was excluded in the rivet 
table prepared by the Contractor, page 79 of his claim, and is not 
included in the above analysis of such table. 

Mr. Wolf el’s testimony as to the meaning of this table is as follows 
(see pp. 237 and 238, vol. 7 of the evidence) : 


Q. I want to ask you if you realize that an analysis of those figures and the 
application of them to actual conditions, assuming that the number of rivets 
that you base your calculation on was actually cut out, and assuming that it 
would take three times as long to cut out and redrive a rivet as to originally 
drive it, shows that two-tliirds of the time spent in riveting and two-thirds of 
the money paid for riveting at Panama was in work on rivets that were con¬ 
demned and subsequently cut out and redriven? Do you realize that that 
table means that?—A. (As amended May 13, 1915.) I wish to state that that is 
entirely correct, and I am fully aware of it. 

However, I would rather see this put in a slightly different way, as the 
original driving, cutting out, and redriving of rivets covers both the effective 
and wasted labor, and as the combination of the two might, to the reader who 
does not go thoroughly into this point, produce a very wrong impression. In 
judging the effect of cut-out rivets on the cost of the work I have always only 
considered the cost of cutting out and redriving by itself. This represents tlie 
wasted labor, while the cost of the original driving covers the cost of putting 
the rivets into the work under the ideal condition, when there are no rivets 
cut out. 

On this basis we get from the first part of the blue-print corrected table, on 
page 79 in the revised claim, the following results: 


Cents. 

Total average cost of driving of rivets, per piece_ 11.45 

Normal cost, including 6 per cent cut-outs, per piece_ 6 ! 95 

Cost of original driving, per piece_” 5 ’ §9 


This would make the cost of the original driving 51.5 per cent of the total 
cost; the normal cost of driving rivets, including the 6 per cent cut-outs, 
60.1 per cent of the total cost; the total waste in labor in cutting out, 48.5 
per cent of the total cost; and the excess cost to the Contractor, 39.9 per cent 
of the total cost. 

























McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 291 

For Miraflores, which, in accordance with page 75 of the claim, is the basis 
of the calculations, these figures would be as follows: 

Cost of original driving, G1.2 per cent of the total cost. 

Normal cost of driving rivets, including the 6 per cent cut-offs, 72.2 per cent 
of the total cost. 

Total waste in labor in cutting out, 3S.8 per cent of the total cost. 

Excess cost to the Contractor, 27.8 per cent of the total cost. 

I believe that is the way it figures out from the table submitted. 

The per cent of Avaste labor, Table 1 of the Contractor, is 39.2 per 
cent. The per cent of Avaste labor, Table 2 of the Contractor, is 
45.1 per cent. The aA’erage per cent of AA T aste labor on Avliich claim 
is based, Tables 1 and 2, is 42 per cent. The total amount claimed 
to have been AA T asted in driving rivets at all three lock sites is 
$270,655.50, not including rush work at Miraflores, and not includ¬ 
ing the per cent that Avould haA-e to be added to cover transportation, 
liability, and insurance, nor anything for extra equipment. 

The difficulties in riveting up, if the assumptions on which the 
tables are based represent the facts, did cause great delay in the 
performance of the work under the contract, and at least from one- 
third to one-half of the claim for rush work could be attributed to 
this cause. The extent to which the work was affected, as shoAvn 
by this table, if the assumptions on Avhicli the computations are 
based should be taken as facts, shows that approximately $400,000 
Avas Avasted in connection with the riveting up of these gates. This 
-would represent nearly one-eighth of the entire expense of erection, 
exclusive of equipment and applying of the bitumastic enamel. 
It would mean that in the item of labor for meeting, not including 
rush Avork at Miraflroes, 42 days in e\ery 100 Avere Avasted; that 
more than 4 hours out of every 10 Avas Avasted; that the work of 
riveting should haA^e be'en done Avith the same force and same equip¬ 
ment in 58 per cent of the actual time that it took to do it under the 
assumed conditions. 

If the assumptions made in the preparation of this table are taken 
ns representing the actual facts that existed, it would show a re¬ 
markable situation, existing for a remarkably long time. It Avould 
also shoAV that the conditions which were affecting the number of 
rivets to be cut out Avere continuous, operating practically as a con¬ 
stant, inherent cause in the character of the Avork or the character 
of the Avorkmanship done or required. 

The first proposition to be considered is to determine, as nearly 
as practicable, the number of rivets that Avere cut out. The way the 
Contractor undertakes to establish this proposition is: First, by 
attempting to sIioav the number of rivets that were shipped to the 
Isthmus to apply upon this contract, the amount of rivet rods and 
number of rivets that could be made from such rods at the average 
weight of the rivets paid for, and in this way to arrive at the total 
number of rivets used in connection with the contract. He then 
takes the number of field rivets that Avould be required in the gates, 
5,730.000. He then alloAvs 4 per cent for burnt and lost rivets, or 
230,000, and 6 per edit, or 344,000, for those cut out under normal 
conditions. The rivets for spare parts are then added—157,652,. 
and 261,450 that Avere transferred to Balboa leaves, sold to the Isth¬ 
mian Canal Commission, or returned to the plants of the Contractor. 
The remaining rivets he treats as excess cut-outs and bases his claim, 


292 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


so far as rivets are concerned, on the excess arrived at in this way. 
Second, by testimony of witnesses, giving their estimates of the 
per cent of rivets that were cut out. The first method is an attempt 
to raise a presumption as to the cut-outs by showing the number of 
rivets used to produce the necessary results. The second method is 
to raise a presumption as to the number of cut-outs by estimates 
made by witnesses who had personal knowledge of the conditions as 
they existed at the time the riveting was being done. 

The evidence submitted to establish the number of rivets shipped 
to the Isthmus is the shipping lists of the Contractor. The total 
number of rivets of each diameter, the total of all rivets, and the 
total weight were as follows: 


f-inch_ 
1-inch _ 

I- inch_ 

II- inch 


58, 801 
4, 923, 201 
1, 939, 959 
84, 595 


Total _ 
Total weight 


7, 006, 556 
5, 951, 145 


In addition to these rivets, 1,052,265 pounds of rivet rods were 
shipped to the Isthmus. The size, shipment number, order, date of 
shipment, and the number of pounds shipped are shown in the table 
below: 


t-inch rod: Pounds. Pounds. 

Shipment No. 1, special 56, Nov. 26, 1912_ 10, 000 

Shipment No. 4, special 56, Feb. 8, 1913_ 20, 000 

- 30,000 

1-inch rod: 

Shipment No. 2, field 127, Oct. 10, 1912_ 60,000 

Shipment No. 3, special 56, Dec. 26, 1912_ 60, 000 

Shipment No. 5, special 56, Feb. 19, 1913_212, 250 

Shipment No. 10, special 56, July 16, 1913_ 205,120 

- 537,370 

1-inch rod: 

Shipment No. 2, field 127, Oct. 10, 1912_ 30, 000 

Shipment No. 2, special 156, Dec. 17, 1912_ 30, 000 

Shipment No. 6, special 56, Feb. 24, 1913-,_ 208, 890 

Shipment No. 7, special 56, June 2, 1913_ 40,000 

Shipment No. 8, special 56, June 18, 1913_ 50, 000 

Shipment No. 11, special 56, July 23, 1913_ 51,320 

Shipment No. 13, special 56, Aug. 12, 1913_ 20, 160 


l$-inch rod: 

Shipment No. 2, field 127, Oct. 10, 1912_ 6, 000 

Shipment No. 2, special 56, Dec. 17, 1912_ lo’ 000 

Shipment No. 9, special 56, July 11, 1913_ 4’005 

Shipment No. 12, special 56, Aug. 19, 1913_ 3l’ 200 

- 51,205 


On field 127, the items are given in tons, and amount to 48 tons; the 
poundage of the 48 tons are shown to be 99,320; that would make 
a difference of_ 


1, 04S, 945 


3, 320 


1, 052, 265 

The shipping* lists furnished by the Contractor show the diameter 
and length of the rivets, weight'of the rivets, number of rivets, car 
number, contract number, and the date of the shipment. The in- 
































McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


293 


spectors’ shop reports have been examined, and it has been found 
that the data placed on the shipping lists correspond substantially 
with the inspectors’ shop reports. It is not undertaken to say, how¬ 
ever, that every shipment of rivets shown in the very large number 
of shipping lists has been checked with the inspector’s reports, but 
enough of these lists have been examined and compared with the 
data found in the inspectors’ shop books to satisfactorily show that 
the data contained in the shipping lists substantially correspond with 
like entries maule by the Isthmian Canal Commission’s inspectors in 
their original shop books. 

Mr. Harry P. Fullem was shipping clerk for the Contractor from 
July, 1911, until the work was completed. His testimony is found in 
volume 20, pages 58 to 66. He produced the original shop books 
kept by him, showing the shipment of rivets under the various con¬ 
tracts. These shop books were examined and it is found that the 
entries contained in them as to the shipment of rivets correspond 
with the entries in the shipping lists produced by the Contractor. 
The evidence seems to establish the fact that rivets of the weight, 
and possibly of the number, as shown on page 342 of this report, were 
shipped. It also establishes the fact that rivet rods of the weight 
shown on page 343 of this report were shipped. (See blue print, vol. 
29, list of rivets taken from shipping lists; also shipping lists referred 
to in this blue print.) 

All rivets are billed and paid for by weight. The transfers of 
rivets were accounted for by weight. The way in which the Con¬ 
tractor arrives at the number of rivets is by taking the number shown 
on the shipping lists and adding to this the number thfit could be 
made from the rivet rods shipped to the Isthmus, after allowing 3 
per cent for waste and estimating the weight of the rivets made at the 
average weight of the rivets paid for. This computation would pro¬ 
duce the following result: 

The total number of rivets that appear to have been shipped, as 
shown on the shipping lists, is 7,006,556. The average weight of 
the rivets paid for was 0.86898. The amount of rivet rods shipped, 
when reduced by 3 per cent, was 1,020,700. At the average weight 
that was paid for the number of rivets shipped there could have been 
made from these rivet rods 1,174,600 rivets. This, added to the rivets 
shown on the shipping lists, would make 8,181,156 rivets to be ac¬ 
counted for. (See blue-print list of rivets, vol. 29, p. 1.) 

The way in which the Contractor accounts for the rivets shipped 
to the Isthmus, claimed to have been made from the rivet rods, is as 
follows : 

The actual number of rivets placed in the leaves was 5,730,000; the 
rivets for spare parts, 157,652. He claims to have transferred to 
Balboa leaves 41,840 pounds, to have sold to the Commission 81,869 
pounds, to have returned to Pittsburgh 73,725 pounds, and to have 
returned to Pottstown 29,760 pounds, making a total of 227,194 
pounds disposed of outside of those used in the lock gates. 

The number of rivets transferred to Balboa leaves, sold to the Com¬ 
mission, and returned to Contractor’s plants is found by dividing the 
number of pounds of such material by the average weight per rivet 
of the rivets paid for. This would show the number of rivets thus 


294 McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 

disposed of 261,450 pounds. The number of rivets accounted for 
under this method of computation would be as follows: 

Placed in 92 leaves__ 5, 730, 000 

Rivets for spare parts_ 157, 652 

Transferred to Balboa, sold to Commission, and returned to Con¬ 


tractor’s plants*-_ 261, 450 

Total_6,149,102 

Excess_'_ 2, 032, 054 


The rivets used in the work were paid for by weight. The rivet 
rods shipped to the Isthmus have been accounted for by weight. The 
rivets sold, transferred, or returned to the Contractor’s plants have 
been accounted for by weight. The shipping lists show the weight as 
well as the number. The last thing performed in connection with 
the rivets prior to shipment to the Isthmus was to make a record of 
the weight shipped. 

If the rivets and rivet material should be accounted for by weight, 
the account in pounds would be as follows: 


Shipped: Pounds. 

Shown to have been shipped by shipping lists_5,951,145 

Rods shipped, less 3 per cent for waste_ 1, 020, 700 

4 - 

Total weight appearing to have been shipped by shipping lists- 6, 971. 845 


Disposed of as follows: 

Placed in the 92 leaves and paid for_;_ 4, 979, 276 

Weight of rivets for spare parts paid for_ 138, 677 

Weight of rivets transferred to Balboa leaves_ 41, 840 

Sold to Commission_ 81, 869 

Returned to Pittsburgh_ 73, 725 

Returned to Pottstown_ 29, 760 


5, 345,147 


Excess weight of rivets_ 1, 626, 698 

If this excess weight should be divided by the number of excess 
rivets shown, it would show the average weight of the excess rivets 
to be 0.80052, which is considerably less than the average weight per 
rivet of all rivets paid for and placed in the leaves. If we divide 
this weight by the average weight per rivet paid for, 0.86898, it gives 
the number of excess rivets as 1,871,044. 

The two methods of determining the number of excess rivets 
shipped show a difference of 161,010. 

In determining the number of rivets that could be made from the 
rivet rods shipped, 3 per cent is allowed for waste. The rods were 
shipped in 14-foot lengths. This would allow about 5 inches waste 
on each rod and require all parts of rods, except this 5 inches, to be 
made into good rivets. This percentage is probably too low. It is 
not unreasonable to assume that the weight of waste and imperfect, 
rivets would be nearer 8 per cent than 3 per cent. If 8 per cent 
should be taken as the waste in making rivets from the rivet rods 
the actual weight of the rivets made from such rods would be 
968,084 pounds. This added to the weight of the rivets shown to 
have been shipped by the shipping lists would make 5,951,145 pounds, 
which shows the actual shipment of rivet material, when made into 























McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


295 


rivets, to be 6,919,229 pounds. Deduct the 5,345,147 pounds of rivets 
accounted for and it will leave 1,574,082 pounds of rivets as the 
excess. If this excess weight is divided by the average weight per 
rivet of all rivets placed in the 92 leaves and paid for, it will show 
1,810,492 rivets as the excess to be accounted tor as cut out, burnt, 
lost, or put into scrap. 

# There does not seem to be any reason why the average weight per 
rivet of the rivets that were cut out, burnt, lost, or scrapped and 
classed as excess by the Contractor, should be any less than the 
average weight per rivet of all rivets placed in the 92 leaves and 
paid for. If anything, it would be fair to assume that there was a 
greater per cent of the larger and longer rivets cut out, or at least 
included in this excess, than in the rivets that w T ent into the leaves. 
The shipment of rivet rods to the Isthmus shows a shipment of 

537.370 pounds of seven-eighths-inch rods, 30,000 pounds of three- 
fourths-inch rods, which would make the total of the smaller rivets 

567.370 pounds. * There were shipped of the 1-inch rods 430,370 
pounds, and of the 1^-inch rods 51,205 pounds, or a total of 481,575 
pounds. This is a much greater per cent in weight of the larger 
material than of the smaller material, and assuming that it w T as 
made into rivets it would indicate that the per cent of cut-outs in 
the larger rivets was greater than the per cent of cut-outs in the 
smaller rivets. The more material the rivets had to go through the 
greater the difficulty of bolting up with the small bolts and the more 
liability there would be for loose rivets. It is fair to assume, there¬ 
fore, that a larger per cent of the longer and heavier rivets were cut 
out than of the shorter and lighter rivets. This would also indicate 
that the number of rivets to be classed as excess is probably smaller 
than as shown by the Contractor on blue-print list of rivets, volume 
29 of the evidence. It is believed that a fair analysis of the evidence 
and the application of the assumptions as to waste in making the 
rivets out of the rivet rods and in accounting for the excess weight 
shown from the shipments, in the manner above given, justifies the 
conclusion that the maximum number of excess rivets to be accounted 
for as burnt, lost, cut out, or put into scrap unaccounted for, is about 
1.810,492. 

The way in which the Contractor accounts for the excess rivets is 
by allowing 4 per cent of the number of rivets in the finished leaves 
for rivets burned or lost. He then concedes 6 per cent for rivets 
cut out under normal inspection and charges all of the excess to the 
Commission in making up his claim. Even if 4 per cent should be 
taken as the maximum to be allowed for burnt and lost rivets this 4 
per cent should be applied to the excess claimed, for the reason that 
whatever may have been the cause of driving so many rivets the per¬ 
centage of burnt and lost rivets would be about the same. It would 
probably be greater as to the cut-outs than it would be as to the 
original driving, for the reason that there would be a great deal more 
area to cover in driving the cut-outs in proportion to the number of 
rivets to be driven than would be covered in driving the original 
rivets. The claim indicates an assumed abnormal conditiop as to the 
number of cut-out rivets and the percentage as to burnt and lost 
rivets should be increased to take care of this abnormal condition, 


296 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


and instead of the percentage of burnt and lost rivets being based 
practically on normal conditions, or the total number of rivets re¬ 
quired to be driven in the field, as is done in bridge work, it should 
be based upon practically the total number of rivets that were driven 
in the field, less the cut-outs conceded. 

If the basis above should be taken as indicating the excess rivets 
shipped, and 344,000 representing the 6 per cent conceded cut-outs 
be taken from it, it would leave an excess of 1,4G6,492 as excess to 
be accounted for either as excess cut-outs or as rivets burnt, lost, or 
thrown into scrap as defective. Four per cent of this number, or 
58,659, should be added to the 230,000 that the Contractor concedes 
would have been burnt and lost. This would make the burnt and 
lost rivets amount to 288,659. Two hundred and eighty-eight thou¬ 
sand six hundred and fifty-nine taken from 1,466,492 would leave 
for excess rivets still to be accounted for 1,177,731, as cut out, burnt, 
lost, or thrown into scrap as defective. 

The Contractor claims that all of the rivets which can not be ac¬ 
counted for on the assumptions made in his claim, page 78, were cut 
out because of unreasonable inspection and the abnormal conditions 
under which he was required to do the work. 

Before attempting to examine the evidence in detail as to the num¬ 
ber of rivets that were cut out, such evidence as your committee has 
been able to obtain as to the disposition of scrap rivets or as to the 
probability that more than 4 per cent were burnt or lost or thrown 
into scrap as defective will be considered. 

The Contractor was not able, from his records, to furnish any 
detail as to what disposition was made of the scrap rivets and scrap 
bolts, but such evidence as could be obtained from the examination 
of his books will now be considered. The evidence as to the probabil¬ 
ity of the number of cut-outs will also be considered, and from this 
evidence it will be determined whether or not it was more probable 
that a larger per cent of rivets were burnt and lost or thrown into 
scrap as defective than it is that such rivets were cut out as claimed 
by the Contractor. 

Under field order 88 the Contractor shipped 2,478,082 pounds of 
fitting-up bolts. In addition to this he shipped 189,445 bolts, weight 
not given. At the average weight of the bolts shipped this would 
amount to about 160,000 pounds. Add 160,000 pounds to 2,478,082 
pounds would make 2,638,082 pounds of fitting-up bolt material to be 
accounted for. As above shown, the total weight of rivets and rivet 
rods shipped to the Isthmus, as shown by the shipping lists, was 
7,003,410 pounds. The total amount of this material that has been 
accounted for as placed in the 92 leaves and paid for, and in the 
spare parts as transferred to Balboa leaves, sold to the Commission 
and returned to Pittsburgh and Pottstown, is 5,345,147 pounds. This 
leaves the amount of rivet material to be accounted for, as scrap, 
1,658,263 pounds 1 . This added to the weight of the fitting-up bolts 
would make the total rivet and bolt material to be accounted for, as 
scrap rivets and fitting-up bolts, 4,296,345 pounds. 

The records of the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. vouchers 
67258, 69982, and 69969, with lists attached, show bolts and rivets 
disposed of as follows: 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


297 


Pounds. 

Sold to Jones & Laughlin_5S0,300 

Sold to Trimble-Mudge, consigned to Jones & Laughlin_ 850, 500 

Sold to C. Dreifus, consigned to Jones & Laughlin_ 137,800 

Bolts and nuts returned to Rankin for retlireading_ 577, 977 

New bolts returned to Rankin_ 36, 950 


This makes a total of 2,183,527 pounds of Panama scrap rivets and 
Panama fitting-up bolts accounted for. This would leave 2,112,818 
pounds to be accounted for. 

Two hundred and tAventy thousand four hundred pounds of mis¬ 
cellaneous scrap Avas sold to Mr. Max Solomon, but from the records 
it could not be told whether any part of this* material Avas scrap 
rivets and bolts or not. All of the other scrap in the list attached 
to voucher 67258 is described. 

In a letter from Mr. Sterrett, dated April 1, 1915, in reply to a 
letter from Mr. B. F. Harrah, a member of the Commission, dated 
March 29, 1915, relative to credit of $1,637.38 in special No. 56, he 
states: 

13. Special 56, a credit of $1,637.38, is for rivet rounds shipped to Baltimore 
to be used on the Panama work, but on account of missing the boat was for- 
warded to I’ottstown and charged against that plant and credited to the Panama 
job. Material and rivet stock here should be one item, as they both are for rivet 
rounds. (See par. 13, letter referred to above, vol. 26.) 

Shipping list No. 20910, shipment 2, special 56, dated December 17, 
1912, Avas for 10,000 pounds of lj-in.ch by 14-foot rivet rods and 
30,000 pounds of 1-inch by 14-fcot rivet reds to be shipped by the 
Munson Steamship Line, of Baltimore, Md., a total of 40,000 pounds. 
Shipping list No. 20994, shipment No. 3, special 56, dated December 
26, 1912, Avas for a shipment of 60,000 pounds of seven-eighths inch 
rivet rods to be shipped by the Munson Steamship Line, Baltimore, 
Md. These Avere the only shipments of rivet rods via Baltimore, Md., 
except a shipment of 99,320 pounds, shipping list No. 20101, ship¬ 
ment No. 2, dated October 10,1912, and charged to field order No. 127. 

It is probable that this is the material that is referred to in the 
statement of Mr. Sterrett above quoted. This accounts for 100,000 
pounds of rivet rods claimed to have been shipped as shoAvn by the 
shipping list, and it would seem from this that 100,000 pounds of 
these rivet rods shoAvn to have been shipped by the shipping list Avere 
never delivered to the Isthmus. This would reduce the amount of 
rivet material to be accounted for as scrap, as shoAvn on page 345, 
from 1,658,263 to 1,558,263 pounds. 

It is not possible to check the scrap account of the McClintic- 
Marshall Construction Co. in such a way as to determine with any 
certainty the number of pounds of scrap rivets that Avere returned 
from the Isthmus and sold. For a list of the bolts and the pounds of 
fitting-up bolts see Exhibit No. 27. 

The daily work reports of the Contractor have been examined. 
These Avork reports purport to shoAV, under the various contracts, the 
number of rivets driven day by day and the total number driven 
under any particular contract at the end of any particular day. The 
last one of these Avork reports showing the completion of the work un¬ 
der each contract was blue printed by the Contractor and is found in 
Exhibit No. 27. From these reports it appears that rivets required 







298 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO 


and reported driven under the various contracts were at a cost as 
follows: 


Contract. 

Number 

required. 

Place. 

Number 
rivets re¬ 
ported. 

Cost. 

Actual cost 
per rivet. 

48571 

157,000 

Gatun. 

183,485 

814,224.71 

80.09075 

4861 

270,000 

.do. 

324,167 

28,159.68 

.10129 

4839 

270,000 

.do. 

323,572 

38,667.46 

.14327 

48 35-A 

271,000 

.do.■. 

335,148 

30,126.18 

.11116 

4835 

271,000 

.do. 

334,473 

28,371.15 

.10169 

4851-A 

270,000 

.do. 

230,136 

28,778. 73 

.10658 

4851 

270.000 

.do. 

333,433 

27,201.21 

.10075 

4817 

540,000 

.do!. 

617,558 

55,612. 69 

. 10298 

4845 

187,500 

.do. 

198,088 

17,620.14 

.00397 

4845 

187,500 

Pedro Miguel. 

227,649 

17,631.06 

.09403 

4819 

282,500 

.do. 

332,855 

28,762. 33 

.10181 

4849-A 

282,500 

.do. 

303,889 

24,819.04 

.08782 

4853 

282,500 

.do. 

360,751 

31,646.21 

.11202 

4853-A 

282,500 

.do. 

340,766 

28,556. 23 

.10108 

4857 

157,500 

.do. 

183,471 

17,196. 06 

. 10913 

4857 

157,500 

Miraflores. 

173,629 

16,742.91 

. 10630 

4859 

270,000 

.do. 

288,197 

21,492.95 

.02960 

4861 

270,000 

.do. 

289,013 

20,879.09 

.07732 

4863 

270,000 

.do. 

301,186 

25,428.45 

.09118 

486 5-A 

270,000 

.do. 

289,572 

24,443.43 

.09053 

4865 

287,000 

.do. 

318,060 

27,773.39 

.09677 

4867 

225,000 

.do. 

249,115 

20,969.40 

.09319 



Total.. 

6,611,213 

575,125.50 








The total number of rivets required at the various lock sites and 
the total number that is reported to have been driven from these 
work reports is as follows: 



Total 

number 

reported. 

Total 

number 

required. 

Excess re¬ 
ported. 

Per cent 
of excess. 

Gatun..... 

2,980,060 

1,7^9,381 

1,911,772 

2,508,000 

1,476,000 

1,746,000 

472,060 

273,381 

164,299 

18. 81 
18. 49 
9.39 

Pedro Miguel. 

Miraflores.... 

Total.. 

6,639,740 

5,730,000 

909, 740 

15.88 



The table below shows the per cent reported in excess of the number 
required on each contract: 



Contract. 

Percent. 

Gatun. 

48571 

4861' 

16.869 

Do. 

20.062 

Do. 

4859 

19. 84 

Do. 

4855-A 

23.67 

Do. 

4855 

23. 436 

Do. 

4851-A 

22.272 

Do. 

4851 

23.49 

Do. 

4847 

14.362 

Do. 

4815 

5.6522 

Pedro Miguel. 

4845 

21.407 

» Do. 

4849 

17.82 




Contract. 

Per cent. 

Pedro Miguel. 

4849-A 

7.568 

Do. 

4853 

27.7 

Do. 

4853-A 

20.625 

Do. 

4857 

14. 422 

Miraflores. 

4857 

9.655 

Do. 

4859 

6.739 

Do. 

4861 

7.042 

Do. 

4863 

12.254 

Do. 

4853-A 

7.299 

Do. 

4865 

10.822 

Do. 

4867 

10. 717 


The average percentage of reported excess at the different locks 
is as follows: 

Per cent. 


Gatun_18. 322 

Pedro Miguel_18.49 

Miraflores_ 9. 39 













































































































McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


299 


The Contractor was unable to furnish any record showing that 
the cut-outs had been counted. Mr. John E. Iless, the Contractor’s 
foreman, who took charge of the work at Gatun in October, 1911, 
testified that he gave instructions to the rivet boss to deduct the rivets 
that were cut out from the total number of rivets that were driven. 
He asked this question (see p. 48, vol. IT, of the testimony) : 

Q. In determining the number of rivets driven in a day, did you do it by an 
actual count of the rivets?—A. Yes, sir; the riveting boss would count the 
rivets. 

Q. How would he count them; would he count them on the leaf, or by the 
number of rivets that had been turned over to his boy?—A. Well, he would 
count the rivets, how many rivets each gang drove, after the cut-outs; that is, 
after they were cut out and redriven. 

Q. Then, you think your daily reports simply represent the number of rivets 
that were actually driven and accepted?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was that the way you intended to get up those daily reports?—A. No, 
sir. 

Q. Well, 1o you know that they do not do that at all?—A. How is that? 

Q. Do you know that those daily reports do not reflect that situation?—A. 
That is the way mine were turned in. 

().• That is the way yours were turned in?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Well, do you know that the daily reports that have been turned in here 
as showing the total number of rivets that were driven show that you drove 
about 909.744 more rivets than you had holes to drive them in?—A. Well, it 
was not done at Gatun between the time I went there until I left; I know 
that there was not but very few more rivets turned in than what was driven. 

Q. Very few more turned in than were driven? When did you leave there?—- 
A. I left there in September.* 

Q. What year?—A. 1912. 

Q. At the time you left there all of the rivets in the four upper guard gates 
had been driven, had they?—A. All except the sidewalk and sidewalk brackets. 

Q. How many rivets would there be in the sidewalk and sidewalk brackets? 

Mr. Sterrett. A very small number; I do not know; I suppose in those 
guard gates, in the leaf, there were somewhere around 45,000 rivets; they were 
small gates. The 77-foot gates would run about GO,000 to a leaf. Now, in the 
sidewalk there would be about 500. 

Mr. Hess. I would not say you would find more rivets in that leaf now, be¬ 
cause the whole skeleton was driven before I came there and one-fifth of the 
shell. Now, if there were more rivets reported on that set of gates than what 
was in there, it was reported before I went there. 

Mr. Sterrett. I do not suppose Mr. Hess drove 400,000 rivets while he was 
down there. Did you, Mr. Hess? 

Mr. Hess. Oh, yes; I guess there was more than that driven; I drove the 
skeleton, you see, of all the gates on the upper level. 

By Judge Harrah : 

Q. Here is a report that appears to have been made by Mr. Jewel dated 
June, 1912. In that report he shows that the total number of rivets driven for 
leaves 37 to 40 was 195,758. The total number of rivets that are shown to have 
been driven in this cost sheet here [indicating] on these four leaves, 37 to 40, 
inclusive, is 187,500. So at the time that report was made you had reported as 
having driven and accepted about 9,000 more rivets than it appears there were 
rivets to be driven in that work down there at that time.—A. Well, now, under¬ 
stand me, when I went there that skeleton was driven and one-fifth of the sheet¬ 
ing. Now, how many rivets more was reported than was driven before I came 
there I can not say f but when I found out that men were reporting more than 
they drove, I told the foremen to count the rivets that they drove, and then 
when they cut them out, to deduct that many rivets off of them in the next day 
and make them drive those rivets. 

q. Do you know whether your foremen did that?—A. Well, from what the 
foremen said to me, and from what I counted, I thought they were keeping a 
pretty close tab on it. 

Q. In going over these records, I do not remember having seen any entries 
in those daily reports showing a deduction for rivets that were cut out.—A. 
Well, but if a man drives 300 rivets to-day and has to cut 50 of them out, the 


300 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


next day if lie drives 350 rivets and has to drive these 50 over, he only gets 
credited with 300 for that day; he loses these 50 rivets the day after. 

Q. Well, have you any record that will show that? Did you have any re¬ 
ports that would show how many he was losing?—A. Well, the foreman would 
have the hook, and I would ask him how many rivets these gangs drove and he 
would hand me the book. 

Q. What was done with those books?—A. The foreman would just hand it in, 
and it would go to the timekeeper. 

Q. What was done with those books?—A. Well, I do not know what became 
of those records. 

The percentage of rivets reported driven in excess of the number 
required on the upper guard gates at Gatun, contract 4845, page 352 
of this report, was 5.6522 per cent. The percentage on contract 4847, 
which was for the two upper gates and two middle gates at Gatun, 
was 14.362 per cent. These were the gates on which Mr. Hess was 
doing the principal part of the riveting, about which he testified. 
It will be noted from an examination of the percentages given that 
the lowest percentage of the reported excess is on contract 4845 at 
Gatun. While this is true, it is also noted that the cost of doing .the 
riveting at Gatun on this contract, in proportion to the number of 
rivets driven, was almost as great as on any other contract. ‘(See p. 
351 of this report.) This would indicate that Mr. Hess was probably 
attempting to report on these contracts only the accepted rivets, as 
he states in his testimon}^. 

Mr. William J. Galloway, who was in charge of riveting and bolt¬ 
ing up in the 'east chamber at Gatun for the McClintic-Marshall 
Construction Co., testified that it was his duty to make reports as to 
the character and quality of work that was being performed under 
him. (See p. 75 of vol. 23 of the testimony.) He stated that he 
made reports in writing daily. He was shown the blank of the con¬ 
tractor headed “ Daily report of rivets and reaming,” and he stated 
that that was not the*kind of a blank upon which he was required to 
report. His further testimony in connection ^witli the way in which 
he made his reports and as to the number of cut-outs is found on 
pages 75 to 82, inclusive. The gist of his testimony is that he did not 
keep any record or have any count made so as to enable him to tell 
about what per cent of rivets were being cut out. (See p. 78 of testi¬ 
mony above referred to.) He thinks there were about 40 or 45 per 
cent of the rivets cut out. For easy reference the remainder of his 
testimony in connection with the number of rivets cut out and the 
way in which he kept his records, pages 78 to 82, is quoted below: 

Q. Did you ever from your observation and knowledge of conditions as they 
existed there on the work that was under you undertake to make an estimate 
of the number of rivets that were cut out?—A. Well, I have occasionally 
thought, from observation and seeing the number of rivets marked in different 
plates and on different leaves throughout the job—estimated it at between 40 
and 45 per cent. 

Q. Between 40 and 45 per cent. Do you mean, then, that there would be at 
least two rivets out of every five that would be marked for you to cut out?— 
A. Yes; right close on that. 

Q. Does that cover the whole surface of the gate or only particular parts?— 
A. That would cover the most of the gate, I believe. I am safe in saying that 
would cover the whole gate. 

Q. How much longer would it take to cut out a rivet than to drive a rivet?— 
A. That is puzzling. I could not answer that question, because there are some 
rivets that you could knock out in a short time and not back them out; others 
would take a day or a week, just according to how they were backed in the 
sheathing. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


301 


Q. Well, do you think half of the time of your laborers down there was spent 
in cutting out rivets and redriving them?—A. No, sir; not quite half, I do not 
think; that would be 50 per cent. 

Q. You do not think it was half?—A. Not half the time. 

Q. \\ ell, you never considered the cut-outs were of sufficient importance for 
you at any time to make an accurate estimate of the number that were cut 
out; A. 1 hat would be pretty near an utter impossibility to do, because when 
an inspector would come and cut out rivets and those rivets would be redriven 
again, probably there would be half of them again to cut out, or others that 
they had loosened up in the redriving. 

Q. Could you not count those, the same as the rivets originally driven?— 
A. That could be done, I have no doubt. 

Q. You did not undertake to do it?—A. No, sir; the job was too large and 
there were too many cut-outs. 

Q. All you did, then, was to turn in the number of rivets you had driven?— 
A. The number of rivets that were driven were turned in by me; at least, they 
were put on the reports; and sometimes I signed them, but as a general rule the 
foreman under me would sign them. 

Q. Then all you would know would be that you would take the count of the 
foremen as to the number of rivets which were driven that day, and turn that 
in as the number of rivets driven by your men?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sterrett. Pardon me. You mean accepted rivets, do you not? 

Mr. Galloway. Yes, sir; all the rivets put down were supposed to be accepted 
rivets. 

Mr. Sterrett. That is not what Judge Harrah asked. 

By Judge Harrah: 

Q. Well—“supposed to be”—do you know whether they were or not?—A. 
Well, I could not say. 

Q. Well, in order for them to be accepted rivets, you would have to count 
the number of cut-outs, would you not?—A. No; we never counted the cut-out 
rivets; they would just give the number of good rivets driven. 

Q. And then you would rely on the rivet inspector to take out the cut-outs 
that were made, and not report them as good rivets?—A. We never kept any 
reports on the cut-outs. 

Q. Then all you know about the number of cut-outs is just an estimate, pure 
and simple?—A. An estimate; that is all I know about cut-outs. 

Q. And you do not know, as a matter of fact, whether there were 20 per cent, 
or 25 or 40 per cent of cut-outs?—A. Well, my estimation on the work is—I 
believe I can safely sa$ that there were about 40 per cent of rivets cut out. 

Q. Then you think that about half of your time was spent in cutting out 
rivets and redriving them?—A. Not quite half the time, but pretty close on it. 

Q. Well, why was it that, if such a condition as that existed, you never took 
any steps to ascertain accurately just what you were doing?—A. Well, we 
were not called upon to make any count on rivets cut out; in fact, we did not 
have any time to count the rivets cut out. 

Q. And yet you say that you were expected to report only rivets that were 
accepted; and how could you do that unless you counted the rivets that were 
cut out?—A. Well, these rivets that were counted, or supposed to be counted, 
were turned in each day by the foremen; they were supposed to be rivets driven 
and accepted by the Government. 

Q. The Government inspector did not inspect the rivets driven every day, 
did he?—A. Pretty near; yes, sir. 

Q. Is it not a fact that he would wait two or three days before he would 
come around?— A. Sometimes; yes. But, as a general rule, when we had driven 
a panel up, or half a panel, just according to where the inspector was, he 
went over those rivets. 

Q. Suppose he went over them the last thing in the evening and marked, 
say 50 out of 250, to be cut out; then, in reporting on those, would your 
rivet foreman report only 200 rivets, or the actual number driven that day?— 
A That I could not say. As a general rule they took the count of these rivets 

a p 0ll t_well, past 3 in the afternoon; all the reports had to be made after 

that—before* half past 4 in the evening. 

O. The reports that I have here as to rivets driven show that you drove 
909^740 more rivets in those gates than you had holes. Now, how do you account 
for that, unless they were reporting each day the number of rivets they drove, 


302 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


regardless of cut-outs?—A. Well, as a general rule, on any kind of ironwork, 
the rivets are away overreported. 

Q. Away overreported?—A. Yes, sir; I have.always found it that way. I 
think it is 10 per cent. 

Q. Well, if it was 10 per cent overreported, there would still be about 400,000 
that would be driven more than you had holes, allowing 10 per cent for over¬ 
reporting.—A. Well, it might run just a little higher there, since that job was 
so big. 

Q. Well, would not the fact that the job was big, and the fact that you were 
working on it from day to day, tend to reduce the errors rather than to in¬ 
crease them in reporting?—A. Well, ordinarily I suppose it would. 

The only thing that can be done is to estimate the number of. cut¬ 
outs in the best possible manner. That this is the case is admitted 
by the Contractor in his brief (see p. 112). 

From May 12, 1912, until the completion of the work, daily work 
reports were made at Miraflores of the riveting by Contractor. These 
reports show the cost of cutting out and reclriving daily, the cost of 
riveting, the number of gangs, number of gangs cutting out and 
redriving, and number of gangs picking up, also the number of 
rivets that were driven. There is always a notation opposite the 
gangs reported as cutting out that no count was made. The totals 
shown by these reports at Miraflores are as follows: 

(1) Total cost of riveting, cutting out, and redriving, also picking 


up_$79, 592. 50 

(2) Total cost of cutting out and redriving_ 12,453.89 

(3) Total cost of picking up__ 1S4. 44 

(4) Cost of riveting- 66,954.17 


(5) Total number of gangs_ 5, S82 

(6) Total number of gangs cutting out and redriving._,_ 1,010 

(7) Total number of gangs picking up_ 18 

(8) Total rivets driven___ 843.195 


Rivets cut out: No count made. 

Under the assumption of the Contractor, on pnge 79 of his claim, 
it cost 5.89 cents per rivet to originally drive rivets and three times 
as much to cut them out and redrive them. On this basis the Con¬ 
tractor could have cut out and redriven as many rivets as 17.67 cents 
is contained times in $12,453.89, the amount shown to have been ex¬ 
pended for cutting out and redriving. On this basis he could have 
cut out 70,400 rivets. On the assumption that it cost 5.07 cents per 
rivet to originally drive a rivet, and four times as much to cut it 
out and redrive it, he could have cut out and redriven as many rivets 
as 20.28 cents is contained times in $12,453.89, or 61,400 rivets. If 
the two results are combined and divided by 2, as is done by the 
Contractor in arriving at the excess cost of driving the rivets. 65,900 
could have been cut out. 

The reports cover about 44 per cent of the total amount of rivets 
that were driven at Miraflores. If this percentage is applied in de¬ 
termining the cut-outs as to the other rivets driven at Miraflores not 
included in these special reports it would show that there were about 
149,700 rivets cut out at Miraflores. 

The total number of rivets reported to have been driven by the 
work reports at Miraflores was 1.911,772. This would show an excess 
above the number of rivets required at Miraflores of 165,772. 

Twelve thousand four hundred and fifty-three dollars and eighty- 
nine cents shown to have been expended for cutting out and redriv- 












McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 303 

ing rivets at Miraflores applies to about 44 per cent of the rivets 
oriven in the gates. If the same ratio obtained as to cutting out on 
the remainder of the work at Miraflores, the cost of cutting out and 
redriving at Miraflores would be about $28,300. 

If we should assume that considerably more rivets were cut out 
on the first part of the work at Miraflores than on the last part of 
the work covered by the work reports, the excess cost would not be 
more than $30,000 or $35,000 at the outside. The claim of the Con¬ 
tractor, as stated on pages 75 and 79, that he spent $52,600 for excess 
riveting at Miraflores is not sustained. If the records of the Con¬ 
tractor are to be accepted as indicating the actual cost of cutting out 
rivets at Miraflores, the number of rivets cut out at that place could 
not have been as great as is shown in his claim, even assuming that 
rivets could have been cut out as cheaply as they could have been 
originally driven. If we assume that the rivets could have been 
cut out as cheaply as they could have been originally driven, and 
that the Contractor’s expenditures for cutting out rivets prior to the 
time that he kept a detail account of such expenditures, he could not 
have cut out more than 180,000 rivets. It does not seem that, ex¬ 
clusive of salaries and special 21, more than $30,000 or $35,000 could 
have been expended in cutting out rivets at Miraflores, including 
rush work; neither does it seem possible from the evidence that the 
number of rivets claimed to have been cut out at Miraflores could 
have been cut out by the Contractor with the expenditures made. 

Upon the basis of the probable actual cost of cutting out rivets 
for the entire work at Miraflores arrived at from the work reports 
in the manner shown above, the per cent of rivets cut out at Mira¬ 
flores was between 8 and 12 per cent. 

The estimated number of rivets adopted by your committee as 
having been cut out at Miraflores will be the number reported to 
have been driven in excess of the number required, or 165,772. 

In adopting this number as representing the probable cut-outs, 
the evidence relative to reporting only accepted rivets and relative 
to overreporting has been taken into consideration. The check made 
from the actual cost, as derived from the work reports of the Con¬ 
tractor, indicates that it is probable that the over reporting is very 
nearly equal to the cut-outs, at least there was no counting of the 
cut-outs for the purpose of reporting them during the time that 
they were being driven by separate gangs, but in the early part of 
the work rivets that were subsequently cut out could have been, and 
probably were, reported as good, and went into the account in such 
a manner as to indicate that there were considerably more rivets 
driven than there were holes to put them in. If rivets were re¬ 
ported as driven, and subsequently cut out, and the rivets driven to 
take the place of the cut-out rivets reported as rivets driven, the 
final result would be that the reports would show a considerably 
larger number of rivets driven than there were holes to put them in, 
and this probably took place, in the early part of the work, at least, 
at Miraflores, and in a great deal of the work at Gatun and Pedro 
Miguel, notwithstanding the statement of the Contractor that only 
accepted rivets were reported. 

From all the evidence, however, the number indicated is believed 
to be as fair an estimate as can be made. If a normal is established 


304 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


at Miraflores, and the allowance is made under this normal, it will 
not be material or necessary to even estimate the number of cut-outs 
at Pedro Miguel or at Gatun, except for the purposes of fixing the 
responsibility for the excess cost over and above the normal. 

The percentages of cut-outs given in the testimony are reasonably 
accurately reflected by the testimony quoted by the Contractor in his 
brief, pages 112 and 113, as follows: 

Mr. Corn*ter, superintendent for the Contractor at Pedro Miguel, volume 16, 
page 64, 30 per cent. 

Mr. Connor, inspector for the Commission at Pedro Miguel, volume 35, page 
12, 8 per cent, which does not include the rivets cut out by the Contractor’s 
inspectors. 

Mr. Hess, superintendent for the Contractor at Gatun, volume 17, page 33, 
one-third of the rivets driven. 

Mr. Galloway, rivet boss for the Contractor at Gatun, volume 23, page 81, 
40 per cent. 

Mr. Dumville, local inspector in charge at Gatun for the Commission, volume 
32, page 96. “ It might have run as high as 40 per cent, can not tell; however, 
the percentage was high.” 

Mr. Wright, superintendent for the Contractor at Miraflores, volume 32, 
page 129, 20 to 22 per cent. 

Mr. Howe, local inspector in charge at Miraflores for the Commission, volume 
32, page 72, 20 per cent. 

Mr. Guynn, chief inspector for the Commission on the Isthmus, volume 32, 
pages 173 and 174, declined to make an estimate of the percentage of cut-outs, 
but says there was an unusually large percentage of rivets cut out and re¬ 
driven. 

Mr. Goldmark, in volume S, page 141, was unable to give a reasonable esti¬ 
mate of the number of cut-outs, but on page 112 says that he knows that on 
some gates there were an awful lot of cut-outs, 

Mr. Goldmark further refers in volume 9, testimony of Mr. Sterrett, page 40, 
to the enormous number of condemnations that occurred. 

Notwithstanding these estimates, it is believed that such a condi¬ 
tion as would be indicated by them did not exist for a period of 
two and one-half years. It is almost certain that the estimates at 
Miraflores, made by Mr. Wright and Mr. Howe, are much in excess 
of the number of rivets that could have been cut out. It is also to 
be noted that during all this period of time covering the work at 
the three lock sites, and during which it is claimed so many rivets 
were being cut out, it is remarkable that the Contractor has no record 
of the actual count, showing for any period of time the number of 
rivets that were cut out. 

In his testimony taken at the Isthmus, reported in volume 32, page 
116, Mr. Dumville testified as follows: 

Q. Was any record kept by you or by anyone else on the work in regard to 
the number of cut-out rivets, either total or for any period of the work?—A. The 
only record I ever kept was once Mr. Goldmark asked me verbally to’ give him 
as near as I could the number of rivets that the average gangs would drive in 
a given number of days. I can not say how many days’ period was taken, but 
the letter is on record, because I mailed a letter to Mr. Goldmark for his infor¬ 
mation. The inspectors picked out two gangs that were under their inspection 
and we kept track of these two gangs for a period of a week or more, I think. 
I do not know how many days; and then I took the average that these gangs 
drove, and the average of what the different inspectors reported to me as 
having been cut out behind these different gangs, and I submitted all that in 
a letter to Mr. Goldmark, and that was the only record in writing that was 
kept, to my knowledge, at Gatun. 

Q. Did you keep a copy of that, or do you recollect the figures?—A No sir 
A copy of that letter was in Mr. Guynn’s files at the time I closed the office 
at Gatun. All of the data that I had there was put into boxes and shipped to 


McCLlNTIC-MAjRSH ALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


305 


(lietime that t0 Mr ‘ Goldmark ’ s offic ‘ e - M **. Guynii was away on vacation at 

Mr. Smith. About when was that report made out’ 

somewhere in 1913; 1 can not say just when. It was 
‘ t the time, I think, \\hen Mr. Guynn was away on his second vacation. 

Mr. Guynn, chief inspector on the Isthmus, testified, volume 32, 
pages 171 and 172, as follows: 

(>. Have jou any information—was any data kept in regard to one leaf or at 
any one point in regard to the percentage of cut-outs?—A. At one time there 
was, for 10 days’ duration. 

Q. Whereabouts?—A. Gatun. 

(>. Was that kept on the work as a whole or on certain leaves?_A. Just 

during the riveting of the upper and lower locks for the 10 days. I was on 
vacation at the time, but the information was requested by the designing engi¬ 
neer, and he detailed his inspector or inspectors to get the information. 

Q. So that Mr. Goldmark lias that information?—A. He should have as 
Mr. Dumville informed me that he forwarded it to him. 

Q. I)o jou know what that information was?— A. I can not remember just 
exactly all of it. I think perhaps the local inspector at Gatun, who is present 
possibly remembers this letter. [Reads from his report:] 

Duiing the month of January, 1914, Mr. Goldmark requested this office to 
furnish data as to the average number of rivets driven on lock gates each day 
per gang and the number condemned by the inspectors.” 

The following report was submitted: 

‘‘ Taking the actual count behind two gangs by each of the inspectors for a 
period of 10 days, showed the average number of rivets to be 212 per gang. 
On the end reaction castings 1,270 rivets were driven and submitted for inspec¬ 
tion, the inspector condemning 12. On the sheathing in gates, upper lock, the 
inspector condemned on an average of about 17 in each panel (about 1.300 rivets 
per panel) on the sheathing in the gates in lower locks, out of a total of 948 
rivets (the total number driven by five gangs in one day) the inspector con¬ 
demned 21.” 


This testimony of Mr. Guynn indicates that it could have hardlv 
been possible for the percentage of cut-out rivets at the various lock 
sites to have run anywhere near the estimates that have been made 
by the witnesses and the estimates contained in the claim of the Con¬ 
tractor. 

The location of the rivets in the leaves and the number of such 
rivets is shown in the list prepared by Mr. Hammer February 21, 
1913. This list is as follows: 


Table 1. —Number of field rivets required for one leaf of mitering lock gates , 

Panama Canal , W. O. 23444' 


Height of leaf. 


Location of field rivets 
in— 

47 feet 4 inches. 

Upper | Lower 
guard, j guard. 

54 feet 

8 inches. 

66 feet. 

77 feet. 

77 feet 

10 inches. 

79 feet. 

82 feet. 

Skeleton. 

8.220 

8,250 

9,610 

11,7U) 

13,690 

13,710 

14,490 

14,510 

Upstream sheathing— 

15,300 

15,300 

19,460 

23,000 

28,450 

28,580 

29,090 

29,830 

Downstream sheathing. 

14,560 

14,570 

16,560 

19,910 

25,520 

23,620 

25,180 

25,400 

Reaction castings and 









wedges. 

1,0.80 

1,080 

1,270 

1,540 

1,810 

1,840 

1,860 

1,930 

Total number for 









one leaf. 

39,160 

39,200 

46,900 

56,160 

67, 470 

67,750 

70,620 

71,670 


The number of field rivets given under: 1—Skeleton includes the rivets that connect the intercostals, 
vertical frames, and diaphragms to the girders. 


29249°—H. Doc. 906, 64-1 


20 


























306 McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 

The number of leaves of the different heights is as follows: 


47 feet 4 inches: Number. 

Upper guard_ 4 

Lower guard_ 8 

54 feet 8 inches_ 8 

66 feet_:_ 4 

77 feet__•_ 40 

77 feet 10 inches_ 8 

79 feet_ 16 

82 feet__‘_ 4 


This shows that about 20 per cent of the rivets were in the skeleton. 

Under paragraph 32 of the agreement of August 10, 1910, the Con¬ 
tractor obtained permission to ream the connections between all dia¬ 
phragms and girders full size in the shop to iron templets. 

On August 16, 1915, volume 22 of the testimony, Mr. W. M. Ster- 
rett testified as follows (see pp. 75 and 76, vol. 22) : 

Judge Harrah. Mr. Sterrett, referring to paragraph 32 of the modifications 
provided for in the agreement of August 8, 1910, please state whether or not 
you had the same difficulty in driving the rivets in these connections that you 
had in the skin. 

Mr. Sterrett. No, sir. 

Judge Harrah. Did you have any more than the ordinary cut-outs in these 
connections? 

Mr. Sterrett. I think not. 

It will be noted from this testimony that there was no trouble with 
the interior connections, and that there was no more than the ordi¬ 
nary cut-outs in the skeleton. The estimates of the witnesses, how¬ 
ever, appear to apply to the entire number of rivets driven in the 
field, which would include the 20 per cent that were driven in the 
skeleton. 

The contractor’s claim is also based upon the assumption that the 
percentage of cut-outs applies to all the rivets in the field. If the 
20 per cent of rivets in the skeleton were eliminated, it would very 
materially increase the percentage of rivets estimated to be cut out 
in the sheathing. 

It is probable that a greater percentage of rivets were lost or burnt 
or returned to scrap unaccounted for than is admitted by the Con¬ 
tractor. 

The testimony does show that an unusually large number of rivets 
were cut out, and after charging the contractor with his part of the 
responsibility for the cut-outs due to his failure to present his claim 
when the specifications were changed to the smaller holes, and allow¬ 
ing a reasonable percentage for excess cut-outs at Miraflores, it is 
believed that in arriving at a normal for Miraflores $12,000 should 
be deducted to cover excess expenditures due to the cutting out of 
an abnormally large number of rivets. (For reference to the testi¬ 
mony, see p. 333 of this report, and for report showing the total 
number of gangs driving rivets at Miraflores and the gangs cutting 
out from November, 1912, to November, 1913, see Exhibit 9, vol. 18 of 
the testimony.) 

In view of the fact that the claim has been presented and is bein" 
considered on the basis of establishing a normal price for dping the 
work at Miraflores and applying this normal price to Gatun and 
Pedro Miguel, it is not considered necessary to go into the details 
of riveting at Gatun and Pedro Miguel, except in so far as such 










McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


307 

details may tend to determine to what extent the Contractor should 
be held responsible for expenditures in excess of the normal ex¬ 
penditures under ordinary and usual conditions, such as he had a 
right to presume would prevail under the terms of the contract. 

In considering the general conditions under which the work was 
performed and the general character of the inspection with a view 
to fixing the responsibility for the excess expenditures over the 
normal, the general character of the rivet inspection at Gatun and 
Pedro Miguel will be taken into consideration. 


CLAIM FOR EXCESS GRINDING. 

The way in which the Contractor arrives at the amount of this 
claim is by including it as one of the items to be deducted in estab¬ 
lishing the normal, as shown on page 75 of the original claim, as 
follows: 

(/) Excess grinding, three-fourths of one-third of $119,1)00, $29,966. 

On page 81 of the Contractor's claim he states what this claim con¬ 
sists of and the way in which the amount of it is arrived at at Mira- 
fiores, as follows: 

(/) Excess grinding .—The total cost of machine work at Miraflores amounted 
to $119,900. One-third of this was spent in grinding the end plates, and the 
nickel-steel hearing plates. Three-fourths of this grinding was unnecessary, 
and either contrary to previous agreement or contrary to the contract require¬ 
ments. 

The Contractor therefore claims three-fourths of one-third of $119,900, or 
$29,966. 

The basis for this claim is found in the statement of the Contractor, 
page 49 of his claim, as follows: 

That they insisted upon having the work executed contrary to the spirit of a 
previous agreement, and also on having work done distinctly not called for in 
the specifications. 

On page 50 of his claim the Contractor states what lie considers as 
the unreasonable demands that were made upon him in connection 
with the claim for excess grinding, as follows: 

(0) The nickel-steel bearing plates had been ground at the shops with the 
utmost precision to a practically perfect alignment. The specifications are en¬ 
tirely clear as to the method that should be pursued to adjust the same in the 
field, no grinding being called for whatever. Contrary to these requirements, we 
had to grind them in the field so that feelers four one-thousands of an inch in 
thickness could not be inserted between these plates when the gates were closed, 
although no such limitation was established on the plans or in the specifications. 
This again caused additional delay and expense. 

(c) As it was proven that the planing of the ends of the leaves was not feas¬ 
ible and not necessary, this planing had been waived, with the proviso that the 
end reaction castings be made in one-story height against two-story heights 
called for, and that any high spots caused by the riveting on these end plates 
in the shop or in the field be removed by grinding. A heavy canvas water-stop 
was also provided between the end reaction castings and the end plates. The 
omission of the end planing was the main saving the Contractor counted on 
when he agreed to absorb a good deal of additional expense he had to incur on 
account of the necessary changes. Contrary to the spirit of this agreement, he 
had to grind the end plates to perfect planes in the field, causing a tremendous 
expense and delay. 

On pages 53, 54, 55, and 56 of the claim the Contractor under¬ 
takes to detail some of the important facts in connection with the 
claim for excess grinding. 


308 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO 


The contention of the Contractor, briefly stated, is that under 
paragraph 16 of the agreement of August 8, 1910, the planing of the 
end plates in the field was waived, and that notwithstanding this 
waiver he was required to do grinding and furnish a surface by 
means of grinding much better than could have possibly been ob¬ 
tained by the planing. This claim for grinding refers to the grind¬ 
ing on nickel-steel bearing plates on the ends of the leaves and the 
planing of the end plates. The paragraphs in the original specifica¬ 
tions referring to the planing of the ends are as follows: 

20. The vertical ends of the leaf as shown in drawings Nos. 5028 and 5030 
will be constructed of a flat plate and two bent plates connecting the fonnei to 
the sheathing. This end plate when securely riveted in place must, during erec¬ 
tion, be planed over its entire surface to a true plane so as to insure a good 
contact for the bearing of the end reaction castings. The edges of the end 
plate and of the sheathing connected to the bent plates must be calked the full 
height of the leaf before the end reaction castings are erected in place. 

Paragraph 121 of the original specifications, in so far as it relates 
to planing, reads as follows: 

121. * * * The vertical ends of the leaves must be kept straight from the 

top to the bottom, so that the bearing plates on the quoin and miter posts may 
be truly in line and make proper contact. After the structural work is com¬ 
pletely assembled and riveted up, the end plates shall be planed to a true 
surface. * * *. 

In the table of corrections, page 4 of the contract, it is provided: 

Page 24, section 121, line 7: “The end plate shall be planed to a smooth 
surface.” This refers to the plate 24 inches wide, at the extreme end of struc¬ 
tural work. The outer surface of this plate is to be finished so that it shall 
form an exact plane for the entire height of the leaf. The original thickness of 
the plate provided must be sufficient to allow this planing without reducing final 
thickness of the plate below three-fourths of an inch. 

The way in which the nickel-steel bearing plates were to be ad¬ 
justed is provided for in paragraph 123 of the specifications, as 
follows: 

123. The reaction bearings in the hollow quoins and at the ends of the gates 
must be adjusted with the utmost care, so as to be in perfect contact through¬ 
out their entire height. The fixed castings will be set by the Commission, so 
that the bottom of their recesses will form a practically flat and continuous 
surface, for the attachment of the nickel-steel plates. The fixed bearing plates 
in the hollow quoin shall be adjusted in a correct position by the bolts and set 
screws provided for the purpose and the pouring of the babbitt shall be done 
as specified below. This adjustment shall be made before the gates are erected 
on their pintles. 

When the castings on the leaves are bolted to the planed end plates of the 
structural work the bottoms of the recesses must be as truly in line as possible, 
and the variation from a true plane must in no case exceed the amount of ad¬ 
justment provided for in the plans. 

The nickel-steel bearing plates on the leaves shall be brought to their proper 
psoition by the bolts and screws shown on the plans. The adjustment may be 
made with gates open or closed, preferably the latter, but the fit of the bearings 
must be tested before babbitting by closing the two leaves to an exact miter, 
and the bolts must be used to correct any inaccuracies thus made apparent. 
The babbitt metal shall be poured after reopening the gates, the bolts and 
screws remaining in place. It shall be poured through holes close enough to¬ 
gether to give sound metal and result in a complete filling of the space between 
the castings and the plates, but in any case the pouring holes shall not be more 
than 4 feet apart. After pouring, the joints between the steel castings and the 
edges of the bearing plates shall be calked and made tight, and all open bolt 
holes and pouring holes shall be carefully filled with neat cement, which shnll 
be finished to the exact outline of the steel. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


309 


Paragraph 35 of the agreement of August 8, 1910, provides that 
(see p. 10 of the original claim) — 

It has been decided to increase the thickness of babbitt between the nickel- 
steel bearing plates and end reaction castings from one-half inch to five-eighths 
inch. 

The testimony on which the Contractor relies in support of this 
claim is referred to in his brief, pages 117 to 128, inclusive. 

The estimate for end planing made by the McClintic-Marshall Con¬ 
struction Co., in the preparation of their bid, under item 1, was $2 
a ton, or 10 cents per hundredweight. (See Exhibit 1 in the testi¬ 
mony of Mr. Marshall, vol. 11.) The amount of material paid for 
under item 1 was 106,963,039 pounds. At 10 cents per hundredweight 
the estimate for the end planing would amount to $106,963. 

It is claimed by the Contractor that the principal consideration 
moving to him for the changes provided in the agreement of August 
8. 1910, was the stipulation contained in paragraph 16 of that agree¬ 
ment, which provides that— 

Permission is granted of making the end reaction castings one story in height 
only; this is done for the reason that the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. 
expects to demonstrate during the assembling of some of the gates in their yard 
that the work can be done so near correct that any minor adjustment can be 
made by means of babbitting between the end reaction castings and the nickel- 
steel bearing plates and the planing of the end plates done at the shop instead 
of in the field. (See p. 5 of Appendix to original claim.) 

Mr. Pendergrass, under date of April 30, 1915, prepared an esti¬ 
mate to show how the various provisions contained in the agreement 
of August 8, 1910, would affect the cost of doing the work in the shop 
and in the field. 

From this estimate of Mr. Pendergrass it appears that $94,323 was 
added to the shop and field cost on account of the changes provided 
for in the agreement of August 8, 1910. It appears that the Con¬ 
tractor saved by the changes provided for $58,323. If we take the 
amount saved from the extra shop and field labor, it would leave 
$36,000. This statement also indicates that the Commission saved 
$53,444. If we should add the amount of this saving to the amount 
of extra labor cost the Contractor had to incur by reason of the 
changes, it would make a total of $89,444 as the consideration mov¬ 
ing to the Commission for the changes provided for in the agreement 
of August 8, 1910. (For the details of this estimate, see vol. 27 of 
the evidenced 

If the end planing should have been done in accordance with the 
original estimate made by Mi\ Marshall, it would have cost the 
Contractor, as shown on page 370 of this report, $106,963. It is not 
claimed by the Contractor that he was to be relieved entirely of all 
work on the end plates by reason of the waiving of the end planing, 
as provided for in paragraph 16 of the agreement of August 8, 1910. 
It was understood, though not expressed in that agreement, that he 
was to grind off the high spots on the end plates. 

After the specifications relating to planing and the modifications 
of the specifications in the contract quoted above in this report had 
been determined upon, pages 106, 107, and 108, Mr. Wolf el s testi¬ 
mony volume 7, and it had been shown that these piovisions went 
to all the bidders before the bids were received, testimony was given 


310 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


by Mr. Wolfel and Mr. Goldmark as follows (see pp. 109 to 121, 
inclusive, vol. 7) : 

Mr. Wolfel. Paragraph 16 of the supplemental agreement of August 8, 1910, 
reads as follows: 

“ Permission is granted of making the end reaction castings one story in 
height only; this is done for the reason that the McClintic-Marshall Construc¬ 
tion Co. expects to demonstrate during the assembling of some of the gates 
in their yard that the work can be done so near correct that any minor adjust¬ 
ment can be made by means of babbitting between the end reaction castings 
and the nickel-steel bearing plates, and the planing of the end plates done at 
the shop instead of in the field.” 

Now, our claim is that we did demonstrate to Mr. Goldmark and to Mr. 
Hammer, after the first leaves were assembled at the shop, that the gates 
built up so straight that with the modification of making the end reaction 
castings of only one story height this planing was unnecessary. 

Q. State what you did to demonstrate that to Mr. Goldmark?—A. Can I 
first state about Mr. Hammer? 

Q. Yes.—A. Mr. Goldmark was not there when the first leaves were as¬ 
sembled in the yard, but Mr. Hammer was there and went over the leaves 
very carefully. The ends were measured up, and Mr. Hammer was satisfied 
that those ends were built up sufficiently straight and that the planing could 
finally be waived. 

And furthermore, after some discussion in our drawing room, he also waived 
the planing of these plates at the shop. This must have happened somewhere 
around or before March 10, 1911, because for the built-up leaves in the shop 
one set of end plates was ordered on September 30, 1910; the balance of the 
end plates for the 54-foot 8-inch leaves was ordered March 10, 1911, without 
any provision for planing whatever. 

The order was exactly as given here on page 18 of our claim. 

As a matter of fact, the end plates were ordered for the 47-foot 4-inch and 
54-foot 8-inch leaves thirteen-sixteenths inch thick; for the 66-foot leaves, 
three-fourths inch thick; and for all the leaves from 77 to 82 feet, in¬ 
clusive, eleven-sixteenths inch; the idea being to comply with three-fourths 
inch as called for in the contract in the leaf of medium height, varying the 
other end plates to correspond with the change of thickness in the skin on 
the downstream side, in order to keep the back of the end plates in the same 
position for all the leaves. Examination will show the same thickness of 
material is specified as part of the finished leaves. 

Q. Go back a moment and state what you did to demonstrate this to Mr. 
Goldmark.—A. Well, I am not quite clear in my remembrance of that, but 
going over the matter with some of our shop men the other day they remem¬ 
bered, as well as I did, that when Mr. Goldmark came to Rankin again the 
plumb bobs were put on the end of these leaves and the dimensions checked up. 

Q. To what height had the leaves been bulit up at that time?—A. I can not 
tell positively. Probably five or six stories. 

Mr. Goldmark. They were built in sections; not to the whole height. 

Judge Harrah. I know that, but I want to know in how many sections. 

Mr. Goldmark. The whole gate. They built several sections in different 
parts of the yard, so that we could see the actual gate at one time; but not one 
stuck right on top of the other like a house. 

Judge Harrah. That is what I mean; they were not stuck one right on ton 
of the other? 

Mr. Goldmark. They could not dojt; but the whole gate was there in places. 

By Judge Harrah; 

Q. That is what I wanted to get; you may go ahead—A. I naturally sup¬ 
posed then that Mr. Golmark would be satisfied with the arrangement made 
because our plans clearly show that there was no provision whatever made 
for planing those end plates, and I know that Mr. Hammer waived it. 

Q. You say here that you did demonstrate it to Mr. Goldmark?—A.* I did. 
And at that time I thought I could positively state that Mr. Goldmark agreed 
to it. As I said before, I am a little hazy on that, and as Mr. Goldmark dis¬ 
putes it I can not contradict him. But Mr. Hammer acted in his place and 
Mr. Hammer certainly did waive that end planing. 

Mr. Marshall. Would it be permissible for me to make a remark now? 

Judge Harrah. Yes; I will first swear you. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


311 


(Mr. Marshall was then duly sworn by Judge Hurrah, that the statements 
he should make in connection with this investigation and the testimony he 
should give would be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.) 

Mr. Marshall. Supplementing Mr. Wolfel’s remarks in reference to your 
question, we actually assembled at our shop one of these leaves, complete, in 
three sections; and having assembled them, we were able to demonstrate by 
the actual figures whether or not it was necessary to do this planing; and 
alter this leaf was assembled the measurements demonstrated that the planing 
was unnecessary, because the assembling came so true that it was practically 
perfect. 

Judge Harrah. Was Mr. Goldmark there when you took those measure¬ 
ments? 

Mr. Marshall. I believe he was. 

Judge Harrah. Have you those measurements in your files now? 

Mr. Marshall. Not that I know of; but I expect Mr. Hammer had them. 

Judge Harrah. Well, you made the measurements, did you not? 

Mr. Marshall. No, sir; Mr. Hammer made the measurements in connection 
with our men. 

Judge Harrah. Did he furnish you copies of his measurements? 

Mr. Marshall. I believe he did ; my recollection is having seen those measure¬ 
ments. 

Judge IIarrah. Did you discuss those measurements with Mr. Goldmark? 

Mr. Marshall. I think they were discussed with Mr. Goldmark. 

Judge Harrah. Well, did you discuss them with Mr. Goldmark? 

Mr. Marshall. I do not know that I did personally; no. 

Judge Harrah. That is all. 

Mr. Marshall. I believe that Mr. Goldmark will confirm the statement that 
those measurements were so accurate that he believed it was unnecessary to do 
any planing. 

Judge Harrah. What about that, Mr. Goldmark? 

Mr. Goldmark. As I recollect it, when I got there the end plate was covered 
up, because the castings had been put on the ends of the gates, so that if these 
measurements were made of the end plate before the castings were put on, 
that was done before I got there. The castings were all on. Is that right, Mr. 
Wolf el? 

Mr. Wolfel. I can not tell. 

Mr. Goldmark. I am very sure that the castings were all on before I got 
there. The leaves were certainly very true and good, as was shown in a letter 
that I wrote to Col. Hodges at the time. 

Mr. Wolfel. May I say a word? I tried to bring out before that that matter 
apparently was settled by Mr. Hammer. I will correct my statement in this 
book, because at that time I thought Mr. Goldmark was the one that settled it. 
It must have been settled by Mr. Hammer, because he ordered the other plates 
on Match 10, 1911, before Mr. Goldmark got there. 

Now, what later on took place between Mr. Hammer and Mr. Goldmark, or 
between Mr. Goldmark and ourselves, I can not swear to. But whatever hap¬ 
pened, Mr. Hammer acted in the Commission’s stead, and there is no question 
that he always understood that those end plates had not to be planed. This is 
also brought out in that letter that Mr. Price w^rote, quoted in the appendix. 

Judge Harrah. Let Mr. Goldmark proceed with his statement. 

Mr. Goldmark. I would like to say a word more. That I do not seem to 
remember much of anything about that end plate coming up at that time. The 
rivet holes were discussed, as you remember, for days and days. 

Mr.' Marshall. Yes. 

Mr. Goldmark. But I honestly can not remember that the end-plate question 
was brought up with me. As Mr. Wolfel says, it may have been settled with 
Air. Hammer; but I remember that the gates, as a wiiole, were very true and 
plumb, as I wrote to Col. Hodges, to Pittsburgh or New York, within a day 
or two; but as to the end plates I have no recollection. 

Judge Harrah. Did anyone show you any measurements that had been 
taken in connection with the end plates, to show whether or not they w*ere true 
and built up straight to such an extent that planing would seem to be 
unnecessary? 

Mr. Goldmark. I have absolutely no recollection of that question coming up. 
I have thought it over a good deal during the last six months, and I have looked 
over correspondence, but I can find nothing. It may have been that the matter 


312 


MeCLINTIOMARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


was brought up with me, hut I can not recollect that that question came up at 
that time. 

Mr. Wolfel. May I ask Mr. Goldmark a question? 

Judge Harrah. Yes. 

Mr. Wolfel. Mr. Goldmark, have you any recollection of telling me that 
high spots could be taken off by grinding, but to have a few low spots would 
not make any difference? 

Mr. Goldmark. I said that over and over again on the Isthmus, but T have 
no recollection of saying it to you or that that question came up. 

Mr. Wolfel. You did not say it in the yards when we were looking over 
these leaves? 

Mr. Goldmark. I may have, but I can not remember. I have searched my 
memory and can not remember saying anything on the plate question during 
that visit at Pittsburgh. I may have done so, but I have no notes of it and 
can not seem to remember. 

Mr. Wolfel. I have no notes of it; but at that time it seemed to me that you 
said that the high spots could be taken off by grinding, and the low spots would 
not make any difference. 

Mr. Goldmark. I have always said low spots do not make any difference, be¬ 
cause the castings will extend over them. You will find over the low spot- 

Mr. Wolfel (interposing). Did you not understand that this end planing was 
waived ? 

Mr. Goldmark. No ; I never understood it; and I have no reports from Mr. 
Hammer about this matter. 

Mr. Wolfel. Does not this order for the end plates show you that the 
planing was waived? 

Mr. Goldmark. It looks so; but I did not know what planing you had ordered 
up in Pittsburgh. It looks so to me from that; and I have no doubt that you 
had that in your mind; but as I say, personally I have no recollection, nor was 
it reported to me by Mr. Hammer. 

Mr. Wolfel. Of course, we can not help that; but tliis was all gone over in 
detail, and those dimensions were settled by Mr. Hammer himself to come near 
the modification in W. O. 23444 and at the same time kept their distance con¬ 
stantly. 

Mr. Goldmark. I have been over that plan, and those distances do check from 
end to end of the gates. 

Mr. Wolfel. And they do not give you three-fourths inch in that one case, and 
they certainly make no allowance for planing. 

Mr. Goldmark. Geometrically, that is entirely right; and I have no doubt of 
that order. I do not doubt it at all; but it was not in my correspondence. 

Mr. Wolfel. Well, if those plates were to be planed there would have to be 
an order for it. 

Mr. Goldmark. Yes. 

Mr. Wolfel. And there is no record of it here. 

By Judge Harrah: 

Q. Did the drawings, approved by Mr. Hammer, show these thicknesses for 
the plates when ordered?—A. The drawings approved by Air. Hammer show 
these thicknesses for the plates when ordered. 

Q. Had the question as to the change in the thicknesses of the plates indi¬ 
cated in the specifications been discussed with Air. Hammer before the draw¬ 
ings were made?—A. Absolutely. I remember the day just when Air. Hammer 
settled on those thicknesses himself, on the second floor of our drawing room, 
in the presence of Air. Pendergrass, I think right near Air. Winterbottom’s 
table; that is clear in my mind. 

Judge Harrah. Now, I want to ask Air. Goldmark a question: Were you ad¬ 
vised of these changes in the thicknesses of the plates at the time they took 
place? 

Air. Goldmark. We received these detailed drawings at about that time, but 
that is the only way; I was not told by letter or by word of mouth, as I 
recollect. 

Judge Harrah. Did these detailed drawings indicate the thickness? 

Mr. Goldmark. I do not know; I think they did. But they were very volumi¬ 
nous, and I must confess we paid very little attention to them on the Isthmus 
They were not checked by us—by me or anybody. They were filed and used in 
the erection; and the inspector had a set; but it was a multitudinous detail 
and after the drawing was once approved by Air. Hammer that generally 



McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


313 


settled it. In fact, it was far too late after we received the drawing to make 
any changes. 

Mr. Sterrett. Did not Mr. Goldmark just previously state here that he 
checked over the drawings and found they were correct? 

Judge Harrah. I understand that was since this claim came up. 

Mr. Goldmark. That was since this claim came out; I think Mr. Price and I 
went over them to see as to that little difference in the thickness of the plates 
to correspond with the skin thickness—whether that statement is correct, and 
the statement is correct. 

Judge TIarrah. Let me ask Mr. Price one question: First, I will swear him. 

(Mr. Price was duly sworn according to law.) 

Judge Harrah (continuing). Mr. Price, look at page 18 of the Appendix to 
the claim. Have you examined the drawings with a view of determining 
whether or not the drawings as approved called for material for the 47-foot 
4-inch and 54-foot 8-inch leaves to he thirteen-sixteenths inch, the 66-foot leaves 
to be three-fourths inch thick, and for all leaves from 77 to 82 feet, inclusive, 
to be eleven-sixteenths inch thick? 

Mr. Price. I have not gone over that thoroughly enough to answer that. 

Judge Harrah. Have you gone over it at all? 

Mr. Price. I have gone over some of them. 

Judge Harrah. Do you find any of them to agree with that statement? 

Mr. Price. All of them that I have gone over agree with it. 

Judge Harrah. That is enough. 

Mr. Wolfel. Can we introduce a letter written by Mr. Price as evidence 
that confirms our claim about the planing being waived? 

Judge Harrah. You may introduce any evidence that you have on that point. 

Mr. Wolfel. I wish to submit a report furnished us by Mr. Hammer that 
Mr. Price made to him, as I gather, some time in February, 1912. The copy 
had no date on it, but the whole occurrence was at that time. After talking 
about some defects in the work, in the third paragraph of this letter he states: 

“ Bent plates: This member, which has never been entirely satisfactory, 
owing to its construction, which makes it difficult to fabricate and check, is 
open to severe criticisms. A number of the ii-inch holes have been reamed 
1 inch by mistake, as reported February 20. Many of the countersunk rivets 
do not fill the countersink and many are chipped below the surface of the end 
and bent plates. The planed edge which takes the thrust of the sheathing 
is in many cases thoroughly planed, and the milled ends are not satisfactory 
in many instances. 

“ Paragraphs 20 and 21 of the original specifications call for the entire 
surface of end plates to be planed to a true surface after erection. This was 
modified by Mr. Goldmark August 8, 1910, to plane in the shop instead of in 
the field, and modified later to allow the end plates to be fabricated and 
accepted without planing, provided the work proved to be satisfactory. Taking 
into consideration the modification of the original contract, the shop should 
make special efforts to get this member satisfactory.” 

(The letter last referred to was marked “Exhibit 31, Wolfel.”) 

Judge Harrah. Now, that part of the letter is introduced, as I understand 
it, to show Mr. Price’s understanding that the end planing had been waived? 

Mr. Wolfel. That is the idea. 

Judge Harrah. If it should turn out that the castings had been attached 
to the ends at the time of Mr. Goldmark’s arrival there, would you want that 
statement to stand? 

Mr. Wolfel. As I told you, it is from memory; I can not tell; I do not know 
whether the castings were attached to any of the leaves or all of the leaves. 
If the castings were attached, then I am mistaken. 

Judge Harrah. The plumbing could not have been done? 

Mr. Wolfel. The plumbing could not have been done if the castings were on. 

Mr. Goldmark. I would like to say that I think myself the plumbing was 
done, but- 

Mr. Wolfel (interposing). You know, Judge Harrah, it has never entered 
my mind for a minute that it would be disputed that the planing was waived, 
as Mr. Price’s letter shows. I never expected for a minute that there would 
be the slightest question that the planing had been finally waived—and that 
planing was waived. Now, whether Mr. Goldmark, personally, or Mr. Hammer 
waived it, I do not know. If I have made a statement that Mr. Goldmark 
disputes—he says he never waived it—that is all I can say. I do not want 



314 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


anything on the record to show that I or Mr. Goldmark dispute each other. 
1 am as liable to be mistaken as anybody else. 

Mr. Goldmark. May I say a word? 

Judge Harrah. Yes. 

Mr. Goldmark. I will say that I was sent for at that time. I came to the 
States on my annual leave, which had been long postponed from the previous 
year. I was in Mississippi on business, and I was sent for to straighten out 
some questions of the inspecting force, rather than any question of the end 
plates, or anything of that kind. That was why Maj. Boggs came to telegraph 
me to hurry here and went out with me. 

The recollection of Mr. Goldmark as to the end planing, and as 
to the grinding done as a substitute for end planing, is given in his 
report, volume 1, pages 86 to 98, inclusive. In his testimony taken 
at Washington May 12 to IT, 1915, volume 8, pages 17 to 21, he 
corrects certain statements made in his report. He further testifies 
relative to the waiving of the end planing and his understanding 
of the matter, pages 172 to 178 of his testimony, volume 8. Further 
testimony in connection with the waiving of this end planing and 
as to the conversation that was had with Mr. Goldmark and Mr. 
Hammer in relation to waiving the end planing is found in volume 
15, pages 18 to 29, inclusive. For easy reference the testimony 
referred to above is quoted below: 

Finishing of end plates, volume 1, pages 86 to 98: 

The plates referred to form the outer surface of the ends of the riveted 
structural frames. They are 24 inches wide and extend the full height of the 
leaf at both the quoin and miter ends. Their total area is considerable, being 
about 25,000 square feet for all the gates. 

The reaction castings, where they bear against these plates, have surfaces 
planed in the shop, and it was intended from the start that the surfaces of the 
plates should be such as to be in close contact with the castings. This was 
deemed necesssary when the design was first worked out—that this should be 
practically a metal-to-metal contact, such as prevails between two planed sur¬ 
faces. The purpose of this was to avoid excesssive pressure at any point, to 
keep the castings from riding on a few high points, and to hinder any springing 
or backward or forward motion of the castings as the water pressure against 
the gates increased and decreased in the filling of the locks. It was also 
thought that the water-tightness would be increased by tight joints well 
painted. This contact of planed surfaces between each of the castings and 
the end plate was an integral part of the original design, and its importance 
was borne in mind at all stages until the final completion of the work. I 
should have deemed it inadvisable at any stage to make any changes which 
did not insure such contact, and as a matter of fact I never did recommend 
or authorize any change that would conflict with this requirement. 

Section 20, page 11, of the specifications, circular 576, embodies this require¬ 
ment. It reads as follows: 

“ The vertical ends of the leaf as shown in drawings Nos. 5028 and 5030 will 
be constructed of a flat plate and two bent plates, connecting the former to 
the sheathing. This end plate when securely riveted in place must during 
erection be planed over its entire surface to a true plane, so as to insure a 
good contact for the bearing of the end reaction castings. The edges of the 
end plate and of the sheathing connected to the bent plates must be calked 
the full height of the leaf before the end reaction castings are erected in place.” 

It will be noted that it requires planing of the end plate after it is riveted 
in place. 

The matter is further referred to in section 121, page 24. which says: 

“ The vertical ends of the leaves must be kept straight from the top to the 
bottom, so that the bearing plates on the quoin and miter posts may be truly 
in line and make proper contact. After the structural work is completely 
assembled and riveted up the end plates shall be planed to a true surface.” 

Section 123, page 24, also says: 

“ When the castings on the leaves are bolted to the planed end plates of 
the structural work the bottoms of the recesses must be as truly in line as 
possible, and the variation from a true plane must in no case exceed the 
amount of adjustment provided for in the plans.” 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


315 


The method by which this planing was to be done was carefully considered 
as early as 1908 and discussed with at least one prospective bidder. It was 
also gone into with several bidders in May, 1908, when the writer was in 
Washington 10 days for the purpose of answering questions regarding the 
meaning of any part of the specifications. Prior to that time, May 21, an 
appendix to circular 576 was issued to prospective bidders, which reads as 
follows: 

“ Page 24, section 121, line 7: ‘ The end plate shall be planed to a smooth sur¬ 
face.’ This refers to the plate 24 inches wide at the extreme end of structural 
work. The outer surface of this plate is to be finished so that it shall form an 
exact plane for the entire height of the leaf. The original thickness of the plate 
provided must be sufficient to allow this planing without reducing final thick¬ 
ness of the plate below three-fourths of an inch. 

The matter was further referred to in a letter from the chief quartermaster 
to the general purchasing officer of April 11, 1910 (file 84-C-81, Part II), which 
says: 

“ Section 121: ‘ After the structural work is completely assembled and riv¬ 
eted up, the end plates shall be planed to a true surface.’ The end plates re¬ 
ferred to are 24 inches wide and extend from the top to the bottom of the leaves. 
It is necessary that a true plane surface should be provided for the attachment 
of the end reaction castings, the abutting surfaces of which are also to be planed. 

“ It is believed that better results can be obtained by planing these plates after 
riveting than by any other procedure and that there will be no practical diffi¬ 
culty in so doing. This matter was taken up in detail with one of the leading 
bridge and ship works in the United States some time ago who, in fact, sug¬ 
gested the above method. 

“In a general way, it would involve fastening guides for a small shaper or 
milling machine to the structural sides of the gate leaf, using some of the bolt 
holes for the purpose.” 

The last paragraph of this letter describes the method of doing the planing 
which the writer had in mind. A perfectly practical machine of this type was 
designed for the use of the Contractor in 1912 or 1913 by the Commission’s en¬ 
gineers at his request and expense, but was never actually built. 

When discussing the detailed construction of the gates with Mr. Paul L. 
Wolfel, the Contractor’s chief engineer, at Pittsburgh, in July, 1910, he sug¬ 
gested that the planed surface on the end plates required by the specifications 
would he obtained equally well by planing these plates in the shop before ship¬ 
ments, and omitting the field planing. He also argued that an exactly true 
plane for the whole height of the gate could in no case be obtained, owing to 
differences of temperature. He offered to show that after the first gate was 
erected in the field, the plates as planed in the shop and riveted in the field 
would form a surface equal or better than would be obtained in case the planing 
had been done in the field. 

No definite arrangement or agreement was made either in writing or by word 
of mouth by which the planing was waived, and the planing was to be done in 
the shop only as an experiment subject to future approval as to the balance of 
the work. 

The only change made at that time was to permit the Contractor to build the 
reaction castings in one-story heights, instead of two-story heights as shown 
in the plans. This was agreed to by me as it made it easier to get good castings, 
and also to get a good bearing on the planed plates in case of slight errors. 
This change is given in section 16 of the modifications made August 8, 1910- 
page 5 of the Appendix. 

I do not remember that the matter was further referred to at the time, nor do 
I remember any instructions to Mr. Hammer either verbally or in writing. 
None have been found in our records. 

The matter was not further brought to my attention during the autumn or 
winter of 1910-11, either by letters from the Contractors or by Mr. Hammer in 
his reports or letters. 

It is claimed by the Contractors, page 31, also page 53, that the specifications 
were modified by me, August 8, 1910, to permit planing in the shop, and 
“ modified later to allow the end plates to be fabricated and accepted without 
planing.” This last modification, if it was made, must have been made by Mr. 
Hammer or one of his inspectors. I have no direct record of this having been 
done, and do not recollect ever hearing of it until I read these “ claims.” 

From Mr. Price’s letter to Mr. Hammer, reprinted on page 28 of the_“ claims,” 
and on record in our Pittsburg files, it would appear that he believed that such 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


31G 


a modification had been authorized by Mr. Hammer. However, the shop plan¬ 
ing never appeared on the shop plans, where all direction.! for workmanship are 
stated. 

According to Mr. Price, the shop planing would have been useless if it had 
been done before the end plate was riveted to the “ bent plates ” in the shop, as 
such riveting would inevitably have drawn the plates out of a plane. The shop 
planing would also have been of little use, even if the end plates had been 
planed in the shop after riveting them to t he bent plate, as the combined thick¬ 
ness of the end and bent plates necessarily varied in different cases. There 
would have been an offset at the horizontal joints where successive sections of 
the end plates met, and even with very perfect planing of the girders and very 
accurate erection the surface of the end plates would not have been satisfactory. 

Furthermore, as was abundantly proved during erection, the field riveting of 
the A frames to the end plates pulled them out of shape, so that hand riveting 
was resorted to to reduce the trouble from this cause. 

I am entirely satisfied that Mr. Hammer did well, if he did so, in recom¬ 
mending'to the Contractor to abandon shop planing. If, in addition to this, he 
told them that planing of these plates in the field would be waived because the 
plates were straight and smooth before manufacture (see Wolfel’s letter, p. 17), 
he made a mistake, because he could not possibly tell what the surface of these 
plates would be after they were erected in the field and riveted up. Owing to 
possible errors in the length of the girders, in their setting, and other errors in 
erection, differences in the thickness of the combined end and bent plates, 
changes due to riveting, etc., there was no one who could at that time foresee 
what would be the condition of those plates after erection. 

As a matter of fact, a decision on this point, abandoning an important clause 
in the specifications entirely, was far beyond the scope of Mi-. Hammer’s duties 
as laid down in his letter of instructions, August 8, 1910. (File S4-C-81, 
Pt. III.) 

April 11, 1911, and some days after that, I spent at the Pittsburgh shops of 
McClintic-Marshall, and made a second visit on May S, 1911, again staying a 
few days. At that time one leaf 54 feet 8 inches was almost wholly erected. My 
lecollection is that the reaction castings had been fastened to the end plates at 
that time, so that the latter could not be examined. At any rate, I have no 
recollection of this matter having been discussed at that time. Mr. Wolfel 
says, page 17 of his letter: 

“ We did demonstrate to Mr. Goldmark and Mr. Hammer, after the first 
leaves were assembled at the shop, that the gates built up so straight that with 
the modification of making the end reaction castings of only one story height 
this planing was unnecessary.” 

All I can say is that I have no recollection of this at all. 

Mr. Wolfel also states, on page 17, that he proved to me that field planing 
would have been ineffective on account of the effect of the sun, and the claim 
has also been made by others that this temperature effect made it quite absurd 
to plane these ends. 

The point has also been made that in asking for a true plane on the end 
plates I had asked for an impossibility, etc. As to this, it is quite true that 
all surfaces on these gates, including the end plates, vary with temperature. 
As far as the ends are concerned, numerous careful measurements on the 
nished gates have shown that during the dry season, when the sun is hottest, 
the top girder is not over one-fourth inch longer than the bottom girder of 
a 77-foot gate at 2 o’clock of an exceptionally bright day. Precise measure¬ 
ments on the bearing plates at the miter ends also showed that at that time 
a straight wire connecting the center of bearings at the top and bottom did 
not deviate from the bearing at any point more than a few thousandths of an 
inch. The larger figures of three-fourths to seven-eighths inch referred to 
by Mr. E. K. Morse on page 56 refers to a possible movement of the leaf up 
and down stream and was in any event an overestimate. 

If it had been attempted to plane these ends by building an (p. 93) abso¬ 
lutely rigid planing machine entirely apart from the leaf, there would un¬ 
doubtedly have been difficulty from temperature, unless the work had been 
done entirely between midnight and 7 or 8 a. m. This would have been an 
extremely expensive machine to build, and I do not think this type of planer 
was ever seriously considered by anyone. By using a small machine fastened 
to the leaf by bolts the planing would have been done in sections, the machine 
gradually advancing down or up the leaf and producing a true and satisfactory 
bearing for each casting. Such a machine was outlined in letter of the chief 


McCLIN TIC-MARSH ALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


317 


quartermaster to the general purchasing officer, April 11, 1910, mentioned 
above. The machine subsequently designed for the Contractor by Mr. Dye, 
one of the Commission’s engineers, was of the same type. In the light of our 
present experience, I believe, much time, trouble, and money would have been 
saved if the Commission had insisted upon this method. 

At the request of the Contractor’s manager of erection he was subsequently 
permitted to substitute for the planing specified, which had never been waived, 
a different method which he thought would be more advantageous to his com¬ 
pany. 

On September 20, 1911, during the writer’s absence from the Isthmus, Col. 
Hodges, assistant chief engineer, wrote to Mr. Jewel, referring to the specifi¬ 
cations, and asked him to plane the end plates of the 54-foot 8-inch guard gates 
at Gatun, which had then reached the stage where this was necessary. (See 
letter of Sept. 20, 1911 file 84-C-81, Pt. VI.) By letter of September 25, 1911, 
same file, Col. Hodges wrote to me, then in the United States, asking whether 
any agreement, verbal or written existed, waiving this planing, as claimed by 
Jewel. 1 can not find record of any reply, but the letter may have reached 
New York after my departure. It shows that Col Hodges, who kept in very 
close touch with this work, did not know of any agreement to waive planing. 

Mr. Jewel, September 21, 1911 (file 17, Pt. II), answers Col. Hodges’s letter. 
His letter in full is as follows: 


“Gatun, Canal Zone, September 21, 1011. 

“ Col. H. F. Hodges, 

“ Assistant Chief Engineer, Culebra, Canal Zone. 

“ Sir : I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of September 20, in re¬ 
gard to the necessity for having the ends of lock gates form a true plane before 
erecting any reaction castings. We believe our surfaces are in perfect condi¬ 
tion in this respect, and will have your chief inspector satisfy himself upon 
this point before any reaction castings are attached. 

“ Respectfully, 

“ McClintic-Marshall Construction Co., 

“ L. L. Jewel, Manager of Erection.” 

It appears that at this time the Contractor’s manager fully acknowledged 
their liability in this respect. 

I can not find any record as to the manner in which, or the exact date at 
which, the arrangement was made for finishing the end plates by grinding 
with emery wheels instead of planing. I am inclined to thinK this was early 
in October, 1911, just before my return from the United States. The under¬ 
standing was, at all times, that the result obtained should be the same as 
by planing and that the change was a concession to the Contractor and made 
at his request. The work was done by small machines handled by one or 
two men, and the character of the work depended largely on their skill. At 
times the amount of grinding was largely increased by the fact that the men 
employed did not use good judgment and ground too much in certain places, 
requiring much extra labor to bring the whole surface to a proper condition. 
The amount of work to be done was the subject of contention from the begin¬ 
ning to the end of the work. My instructions were that it should be limited 
to obtain a good bearing for each individual casting, without reference to suc¬ 
cessive castings. The claim that we required the entire surface from the top 
to the bottom of the leaf to be ground to a true plane is, of course, not true. 
Furthermore, it is not true that the entire surface of the several panels had 
to be made a true plane. 

It should also be pointed out that the reference to the high polish required, 
and the claims that the surfaces were made to shine like mirrors are mislead¬ 
ing. When grinding with fine emery wheels the production of a fine, smooth 
surface is a necessary result. It was never asked for by us. All that was 
insisted is clearly stated in the description of the methods of erection given 
on page 80 of the annual report: 

“ In order to insure a good bearing between the castings and the end plate 
on the gate frame, the latter are carefully ground with emery whee:.i. No at¬ 
tempt is made to obtain an absolutely true plane for the whole height of the 
leaf, as minor errors are readily corrected by the adjustment of the bearing 
plates. The deviation from a true plane is, however, very small. The grinding 
has for its purpose the obtaining of good contact between the individual cast¬ 
ings, which are a panel in height, and the end plates. An exact contact is in¬ 
sisted upon along the outer edges of each casting, and also opposite the reaction 
diaphragms, but small depressions at other parts of the surface are permitted.” 


318 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


The statement made by Mr. Wolfel in page 19 of his letter does not, I believe, 
represent the facts exactly. It is quite true that the surfaces were tested by 
using a straightedge and feelers, this being the only way feasible. It is not, 
I believe true that they were obliged- to grind these plates so that a feeler 
one sixty-fourth inch thick could not be inserted between the straightedge 
and the plate in any direction. The requirement was enforced only as out¬ 
lined above along the edges of the plate and along a vertical line 8 inches 
from the downstream face. Nor was the feeler uniformly one sixty-fourth 
inch thick. This was the degree of accuracy aimed at, but many plates were 
passed in which the limit was very much greater. Further, as to the surface 
away from the edges, no special requirement was made; in fact, depressions of 
any amount were permitted. 

It has been claimed that this was an unreasonable requirement, and further¬ 
more that the exact tolerance permitted should have been stated in the specifi¬ 
cations. With regard to this, I would say that the standard aimed at was to 
secure about as good a bearing surface as we should have got if planing had 
been used according to the letter of the contract instead of grinding to suit the 
Contractor’s preference. 

As to the tolerance permitted, it should be noted that planing within one 
sixty-fourth inch on a surface of 2 by 5 feet can not in any way be con¬ 
sidered close or difficult work. In the case of the bearing plates bought under 
circular 518, all plates showing errors exceeding 0.015 inch, or about one 
sixty-fourth inch, were sent to Gogona shops for replaning. See letters, file 17, 
Part I, .June 2, June 7, June 29, June 30, and July 11, 1911. While these were 
bearing surfaces requiring special smoothness, the limit of 0.015 inch is by 
no means a close one. All that was required in the case of the end plates was 
a degree of accuracy corresponding to the castings which bore on the plates. 
No specific tolerance was ever given for these castings, but no difficulty was 
encountered in making them entirely satisfactory. It has always seemed to 
me that the Contractors, both in letters written during the progress of the 
work (see letters of McClintic to H. Goldmark, Sept. 12, 1912, file 84-C-81, 
Pt. IX, and Sept. 14, 1912, file 84-C-81 M, Pt. I) and in their present claim 
went beyond their proper province in stating just what surface was or was not 
suitable or proper for these end plates in asserting that 75 per cent of the 
grind 1 ’ ~ was unnecessary, etc. This was, I hold, fixed once for all by the 
contract they sighed, which required them to plane these plates. 

In . *,vtinspection it is, of course, not unlikely that in some cases the 

individual inspectors went beyond their instructions, or were otherwise un¬ 
reasonable. This is a matter always hard to guard against, and especially 
in the case of "this particular operation, in which accuracy depended so largely 
on the individual skill of the mechanic. Any individual injustice was guarded 
against by the appeal to the foreman inspector at each lock, the chief inspector, 
myself, and my superiors. The fact that the same chief inspector was in charge 
at all three locks, divided his time between them, gave instructions to all three 
foremen, and could be appealed to at any time seem to me reason to presume 
that the inspection was equally severe at all three locks. I can not testify as 
to this from personal observation. It should be noted, however, that the amount 
of grinding varied greatly in different leaves. This was due in part to the 
condition of the plates when they arrived, in part to the care in riveting them to 
the gates, in part to variations in the skeleton. Where the ends of the girders 
and the ends of the A frames were in very true lines, and the entire skeleton 
exceptionally true to shape, the grinding was much less. I think the greater 
experience at Miraflores in erecting the frame helped to decrease the amount 
of grinding. The process of grinding these plates was at best expensive and 
troublesome, and was so felt by myself during the entire period of construction. 
If I could have convinced myself that its entire omission was permissible I 
should certainly have recommended a modification of the contract with this 
object in view. I did not feel at any time that 1 could conscientiously do this. 
That the work was a difficult one and very troublesome to the Contractor, and 
that it was thoroughly well done, I am only too glad to admit. 

[Mr. Goldmark’s corrections to liis report, pp. 17-21, vol. 8.1 

Q. Proceed to the next.—A. On page S9, fourth line from the end of the 
middle paragraph, I said : 

He (Mr. Wolfel) offered to show that after the first gate was erected in the 
field the plates as planed by the shop and riveted in the field would form a 





McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 319 


surface equal to or better than would be obtained in case the planing had been 
done in the field. 

That was my recollection when I wrote that paragraph; but I have since 
then looked at the agreement No. 16, of August 8, 1910, tenth section, which 
states that: 

“The McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. expects to demonstrate during the 
assembling of some of the gates in their yard that the work can be done so 
near correct that any minor adjustment can be made by means of babbitting 
between the end reaction castings and the nickel-steel bearing plates, and the 
planing of the end plates done at the shop instead of in the field.’’ 

That seems to show that Mr. Wolfel’s offer at the time as mentioned in my 
report referred to showing certain things after the first gate was erected in the 
shop, and not in the field. 

I would like to make that correction, though, that that was in accordance 
with my memory- 

Mr. Wolfel (interposing). Would you not like to correct on page 91, the 
middle part, beginning: “ I am now satisfied that Mr. Hammer,” and so on? 

Mr. Goldmark. I do not remember Mr. Hammer’s letter exactly. (Letter, 
Goldmark to Hammer of Aug. 8, 1910, instructions on turning over the office, 
see p. 199, Goldmark’s report.) 

Mr. Wolfel. Here it is [handing letter to Mr. Goldmark]. 

Mr. Goldmark. I think Mr. Hammer’s letter refers to the field; I do not 
remember. 

Judge Harrah. How was the correction to be made, if one was to be made? 

Mr. Goldmark. I do not understand this. Mr. Wolfel asked me whether I 
would not want to correct something on page 91. Would it be proper to see Mr. 
Hammer’s letter first? 

Judge Harrali. It would be entirely proper and in order to see it. 

Mr. Goldmark. Mr. Wolfel, as I understand it, claims that the matter of 
planing or not planing the plates could and would be settled by the authorized 
representative of the Chief Engineer when the gates were assembled in the 
yard. 

Mr. Wolfel. Well, there is nothing to claim about that. Mr. Goldmark, here 
is your blue print of the original agreement of August 8, paragraph 16—you 
have copies of that agreement in your file—which I can submit as evidence. 

Judge Harrah. I think that is all in; it will be put in if it is not. 

Mr. Wolfel (reading) : “Permission is granted of making the end motion 
castings one story in heighth only; this is done for the reason that the 
McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. expects to demonstrate u <• . sem- 

bling of some of the gates in their yard that the work can be uuiie so near 
correct that any minor adjustment can be made by means of babbitting between 
the end reaction castings and the nickel-steel bearing plates, ana the planing 
of the end plates done at the shop instead of in the field. 

This is from the blue print of the original agreement. 

Judge Harrah. Let the blue print go in the record as Exhibit 2, Goldmark. 

(The blue print referred to was marked “ Exhibit No. 2, Goldmark.”) 

Judge Harrah (continuing). Now, what is the particular point that you 
want to make? 

Mr. Wolfel. I asked Mr. Goldmark whether, as long as he has made the 
correction on page 89 concerning the assembling of the gates in the field being 
the criterjor ' 'hether the planing was to be changed to the shop in accord¬ 
ance withu it. of August 8, he had not better carry forward that correc¬ 

tion on ih^ nU . page 91 of his report affected by it. It makes no difference 
to me. 

Mr. Goldmark. I would say that the agreement of August 8, 1910, paragraph 
16, at the end, says: “And the planing of the end plates done at the shop in¬ 
stead of in the field.” The letter purposely was not to do the planing of the 
end plates at the shop, but to omit the planing entirely; and I state that Mr. 
Hammer went beyond his authority in making an agreement to omit the plan¬ 
ing entirely. He might have allowed them to plane the plates in the shop 
according to section 36, but how could he entirely omit and waive all planing? 

I would also say that, when it was expected to demonstrate, we expected to 
pass personally upon some of those matters, none of which were ever submitted 
to me for decision. 

Mr. Wolfel. We could not submit them to you when they were assembled 
in our yard and you were at the Isthmus. 


320 


McCLIN TIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


Mr. Goldmark. But they could naturally have given me some information. 
I admit that was none of your business. 

Mr. Wolfel. That would have to come through your representative; we did 
not know how far his authority went. We thought he had full authority, as 
far as we knew. 

Mr. Goldmark. But you will admit that in connection with omitting the 
planing you want to read section 16 of the agreement. 

Mr. Wolfel. I admit that; but I have nothing to say about the propriety of 
doing it or not. In fact, I do not know whether it was at that time a matter 
of trading. I think I have a definite recollection of it. But as far as the pro¬ 
priety of omitting the planing at the shop was concerned, that in my estima¬ 
tion, was simply common sense, because the planing at the shop before riveting 
up could not have done a particle of good, as the driving of the rivets in the 
shop and in the field would have destroyed the plate’s efficiency to make the 
planing effective, and grinding should have been resorted to, as it was. 

I am free to state that that planing was waived at my request and on the 
strength of those arguments. 

Judge Hakrah. Mr. Goldmark, have you any further statement to make in 
connection with that paragraph? 

Mr. Goldmark. No ; I have not. 

[Goldmark’s testimony as to end planing, pp. 172-178, vol. 8.] 

Mr. Wolfel wants to ask Mr. Goldmark a few questions about page 51-B, 
“ The Contractor was required to grind the nickel-steel bearing plates to an 
unreasonable extent.” 

Mr. Wolfel. Referring to page 89 of his report, Mr. Goldmark corrected his 
testimony in the last four lines of the third paragraph, from (see pp. 17 and 18 
of this testimony) : 

“ He offered to show that after the first gate was erected in the field,” and 
so on, to a statement in accordance with agreement of August 8, paragraph 16, 
given in Appendix, page 170, No. 20. 

That correction is, of course, entirely correct; but it seems to me that if this 
is correct, some statements on page 91 ought to come out, too, because it reads 
there, in the third paragraph: 

“ If, in addition to this, he told them that the planing of these plates in the 
field would be waived because the plates were straight and smooth before manu¬ 
facture, he made a mistake, because he could not possibly tell what the surfaces 
of these plates would be after they were erected in the field and riveted up.” 

Now, if paragraph 16 of the agreement of August 8 was settled and under¬ 
stood btween Mr. Goldmark and myself, there was no other procedure but for 
somebody at the shops to settle that point when the first leaves were assembled 
in our yard in accordance with that agreement. 

And that Mr. Hammer did, and there was never any question about the thing 
between me and Mr. Hammer that he had a right to do it. 

On the other hand, Mr. Goldmark said Mr. Hammer very properly waived 
the planing of those plates in the shop as printed in this "agreement. Now, 
that is a thing Mr. Hammer and I had quite a time about, and it took me a long 
time to have Mr. Hammer agree to that. 

Mr. Goldmark. Agree to what? 

Mr. Wolfel. To waive the planing of the plates in the shop. But Mr. Ham¬ 
mer’s waiving of the planing of the plates in the field was si 4 *' n accordance 
with our agreement; at least, that is the way I looked up* hd it seems 

to me your statements on page 91 of your report are in erro ant, other pro¬ 
cedure could have been followed in accordance with our agreement of August 8 
1910? 

Now, of course, if Mr. Goldmark, as indicated in his report, was under the 
impression that I would take that matter up in the field with him, which, on 
account of my not being on the Isthmus, was out of the question, then it was 
quite natural that he simply waited for me to act, although he knew the agree¬ 
ment was mighty important to us; and as long as I did not act he dropped the 
matter, but in the meanwhile Mr. Hammer and I acted. 

Judge Harrah. Mr. Wolfel, do you understand that paragraph to be authority 
for your omitting planing altogether? 

Mr. Wolfel. Not until we had demonstrated “ during the assembling of some 
of the gates in our yard that the work could be done so near correct that any 
minor adjustment could be made by means of babbitting between the end re¬ 
action castings and the nickel-steel bearing plates,” and so on. 


MeCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


321 


Judge Harrah. Well, was not the demonstration for the purpose of deter¬ 
mining whether or not these minor adjustments could be made by the babbitt¬ 
ing. provided the planing of the end plates was done in the shop instead of in 
the field? 

Mr. Wolfel. I know; but it was later on agreed between Mr. Hammer and 
myself, and as Mr. Goldmark has stated very properly—or something to that 
effect—in the testimony, the planing in the shop was to remain [to be waived?], 
because we could not obtain a better surface by planing these plates than we got 
from the rolled plates. 

Judge Harrah. Then your contention simply is that Mr. Hammer had the 
right under this agreement, or took the right, to himself to waive the planing 
of the plates in the shop? 

Mr. Wolfel. I do not know whether Mr. Hammer had the right or took the 
right. All I know is that it was up to me to prove to the representative of the 
Isthmian Canal Commission during the assembling of the leaves in our yard 
that those plates were satisfactory and the planing in the field was not neces¬ 
sary, and that I have done. 

By Judge Harrah : 

Q. I call your attention to letter of Col. Hodges to Mr. Jewel, of September 
-0, 1911, relative to planing end plates, which is in evidence. Your attention 
having been called specifically to that letter, and the letter of Mr. Jewel to Col. 
Hodges in reply thereto of September 21, 1911, quoted in your report, page 94, 
do you wish to change this statement in your report? 

“ It appears that at this time the Contractor’s management fully acknowledge 
their ability in this respect.” 

A. I think that statement is all right, as Mr. Jewel did not question Col. 
Hodges’s statements as to the planing, etc., and did not raise the point in any 
way; and as I have also understood from Mr. Guynn that the other method of 
. doing that planing or finishing was arrived at between him and Mr. Jewel, and 
was afterwards submitted to me for approval, namely, to remove the matter by 
means of grinding instead of planing. So I do not think that is too strong a 
statement as it is. 

Well, I would like to say this: The object of the planing was to obtain a good 
surface; the grinding was an attempt to do that with less trouble, and, presum¬ 
ably, expense. If we found that any part of those plates was sufficiently true 
without either planing or grinding, Mr. Guynn was instructed to accept them, 
and he did accept such parts of those surfaces as were sufficiently plain to cor¬ 
respond to the original specifications and give a satisfactory job. In other 
words, the grinding off of high spots is, in a way, exactly the same thing as the 
grinding that we did; it is just a question of what should be considered high 
spots. It was intended as a concession at the time to make things easier rather 
than harder. 

Mr. Wolfel. In regard to the grinding cold, I wish to state that the matter 
of grinding was discussed between me and Mr. Hammer when that planing was 
finally settled, and I was always under the impression that long before this 
matter was taken up you understood that those end plates would be ground 
and not planed. 

Mr. Goldmark. I never understood. Mr. Hammer, as you see in the corre¬ 
spondence, wrote nothing to me about it and said nothing to me about it, and 
I never knew anything about it. I understood for a long time that there was a 
perfectly honest" difference of opinion between Mr. Wolfel and myself about 
that. But after section 16 of the agreement of August 8 was signed I never 
heard anything more about it. 

Judge Harrah Just let me get one more statement from you, Mr. Wolfel. 
Under this agreement, and under your agreement with Mr. Hammer and the 
shop drawings as they were approved, to what extent did you expect to do 
planing or grinding in the field? 

Mr. Wolfel. I did expect to have to grind off the high spots within a limit 
that was obtainable under the conditions of the sun playing around these 
leaves. I claim that the limitation of one sixty-fourth inch imposed upon us by 
Mr. Goldmark was beyond the limit that could have been obtained by planing, 
and we would have to spend more money on that grinding than the planing 
would have cost us. 

Judge Harrah. Do you wish to make any further statement on this subject, 
Mr. Goldmark? 

29249°—H. Doc. 906, 64-1-21 




322 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


Mr. Goldmark. I would simply like to point out that there seems to have 
been nothing in writing on that whole important subject between Mr. Wolfel 
and Mr. Hammer, myself, or any other officer of the Commission, or, as far as 
anything has been introduced, between the Contractors and Mr. Jewel, or any¬ 
body else who would naturally have been in authority. 

Mr. Wolfel. Except that you have a number of drawings that show the 
whole story. 

Mr. Goldmark. We have a number of drawings that show certain thicknesses 
of metal that seem to imply that no planing was contemplated. 

Judge Harrah. I will ask you one more question, Mr. Wolfel: Have you 
any written communication from Mr. Hammer in relation to the waiving of 
planing the end plates of the leaves? 

Mr. Wolfel. Nothing but the approved shop drawings that show the whole 
story. 

Judge IIarrah. The approved shop drawings? 

Mr. Wolfel. Yes. 

Judge Harrah. Have those shop drawings been introduced in evidence? 

Mr. Wolfel. I have not put them in evidence, but it is brought out in our 
claim in detail why the approved shop drawings are the proof of our claim 
that the planing was waived. It is given there very much in detail. 

Judge Harrah. Page 17 of the Appendix; shop drawings showing thickness 
of material ordered will go in as evidence. Mr. Wolfel is to submit, under 
Exhibits Nos. 15, 16, and 17, shop drawings and orders showing thickness of 
the end plates ordered for eleven-sixteenths, three-fourths, and thirteen-six¬ 
teenths inch. 

[Pendergrass and Wolfel relative to conversation with Goldmark and Hammer as to waiv¬ 
ing end planing, vol. 15, pp. 18-29.1 

Mr. Wolfel. The next thing I would like to take up with you is on page 17. • 
paragraph 20, on that much disputed and discussed matter of planing of the 
end plates. As stated in the agreement of August 8, 1910. paragraph 16—I wish 
you would tell me briefly what you know about that. 

Mr. Pendergrass. The question of planing the ends of the gates was taken 
up with Mr. Goldmark by Mr. Wolfel, and I remember having been present, I 
think on several occasions, when Mr. Wolfel was discussing this point with Mr. 
Goldmark and calling his attention to the fact that the planing as specified was 
not practicable, owing to the warping of the gates by the unequal distribution 
of the sun on different parts of the gate. I do not think that I took part in 
this discussion, but I remember having been present on more than one occasion. 

By Judge Harrah : 

Q. Well, where did the discussion take place?—A. The discussion took place . 
here in this office, when Mr. Goldmark was here in July, I guess, 1910—yes; 
July, 1910—and finally continued at least until the agreement of August 8. 

Q. Were there any others present than you and Mr. Goldmark and Mr. 
Wolfel when those conversations took place? 

Mr. Pendergrass. Why, I do not remember. 

Judge Harrah. Do you remember, Mr. Wolfel? 

Mr. Wolfel. I hardly think so, Judge Harrah. 

Mr. Pendergrass. I can not recall anyone; there may have been. 

By Judge Harrah; 

Q. Do you remember whether or not the question was discussed at that time, 
and whether or not it was pointed out by Mr. Wolfel that this was one of the 
valuable considerations that he was to receive for making the other changes that 
were indicated in the agreement of August 8, 1910?—A. I believe that it was so 
understood. 

Q. Do you know whether or not that was pointed out as one of the moving 
causes—one of the reasons why Mr. Wolfel was willing to make such radical 
changes in the work, and such changes as would cost him the amount of monev 
that it appears to have cost him to make them?—A. I am inclined to believe that 
it was—that it was understood pretty thoroughly by Mr. Goldmark. 

Q. Well, I will ask you if you understood from the conversation of Mr. Gold- 
mark and Mr. Wolfel at that time that the end planing in the field would be 
expensive if insisted upon?—A. I believe that it was recognized that the elimi¬ 
nation of the field planing would save considerable expense 





McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


323 


Q. Do you remember whether they discussed any substitute in the way of 
grinding in the field for the planing?—A. No, sir; I do not think there was any 
question that the grinding would be necessary. 

Q. Well, did you hear them discuss that question, as to whether or not they 
would grind off the high spots?—A. I do not recall; I do not remember any 
such discussion about grinding off the high spots. 

Q. You say you do not remember any discussion about them going to grind 
off the high spots?—A. No, sir. 

Q. To do the planing in the shop, if they were able to demonstrate that it 
would be satisfactory, and then grind the high spots in the field?—A. I do not 
remember about that. 

Q. I want you to read that letter from Mr. Goldmark to Mr. Hammer, of 
September 19, 1912, relative to the subject of grinding. 

(Witness examines letter.) 

Q. (Continuing.) I wish to have that introduced as a general exhibit in con¬ 
nection with the testimony of Mr. Pendergrass. 

(The letter referred to was marked “General Exhibit No. 4.”) 

Q. (Continuing.) I find this statement in relation to the grinding in this 
letter: 


“ The amount of grinding when the men are experienced has been compara¬ 
tively small. We do not insist on any straight line from top to bottom of leaf. 
In other words, the deviation at various points is easily taken care of by the 
Babbitt-metal filling behind the bearing plates.” 

When they were discussing the question as to the waiving of the planing in 
the field, was the question as to how far the use of the Babbitt-metal filling 
behind the bearing plates would straighten up the surfaces and render the 
planing unnecessary—was that question discussed at the time? 

A. I do not remember definitely. It was my understanding that when the 
end reaction castings were made in single-story height there would then have 
to be no planing or field work on the end. 

Q. Now, in this letter Mr. Goldmark also states: 

“ We require the surfaces against which the individual casting rests to have 
a true surface along the outer edges, vertically and horizontally; also, along 
the vertical line 8 inches from the downstream face—that is, opposite dia¬ 
phragm A. We allow low spots to a considerable amount elsewhere. We do 
not allow individual high spots on which the casting might rest. In other 
words, we want a fairly decent bearing for the casting.” 

I will ask you if, when that conversation between Mr. Wolfel and Mr. Gold- 
mark took place, the subject of the way the high spots would be treated in case 
any w r ere found on the Isthmus was considered?—A. I do not remember of any 
such. 

Q. Do you remember any discussion about how much would be allowed fol¬ 
low' spots", and whether or not it would be unimportant if there w r ere low spots 
back of the edge of the leaf?—A. No. sir. 

Q. Now, this letter seems to have been written with a view' of taking up the 
subject of the excessive amount of grinding that the McClintic-Marshall Co. 
claims to have been required to do with Mr. McClintic on his arrival in New 
York. Do you remember along about this time—September. 1912—discussing 
the matter of grinding of the end plates and planing of the end plates w'ith Mr. 
McClintic?—A. I remember that that matter was up and Mr. McClintic seemed 
greatly concerned over the amount of that grinding that was being done on the 
Isthmus, and I am quite sure that I w'as present when Mr. McClintic talked 
w'itli Mr. Hammer in regard to that, and Mr. Hammer could not understand 
why this grinding was necessary—why any grinding, in fact, was necessary. 
I believe that it was Mr. Hammer that suggested putting in water stops between 
the end reaction castings and the end plates, and if there w’ere any slight de¬ 
viations from a- 

Q. (Interposing.) Well, we have not Mr. Hammer here, and we will have to 
go at it carefully. I want you to look at that letter of September 16, 1912, 
from Mr. Hammer to Mr. Goldmark [handing paper to witness]. Have you 


read that?—A. Yes, sir. 

O This is a letter from Mr. Hammer to Mr. Goldmark, dated September 16, 
1912; that will be found as Exhibit No. 34 in Mr. Wolfel’s testimony, and will 
also be made General Exhibit No. 5, in connection with the testimony of Mr. 
Pendergrass. 

(The letter referred to was marked “* General Exhibit No. 5. ) 







324 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


Q. (Continuing.) Mr. Pendergrass, do you remember discussing the subject of 
grinding, as mentioned in this letter of September 16, 1912, with Mr. Hammer? 
That was some time before the meeting of Mr. McClintic and Mr. Goldmark in 
New York.—A. Well, I do not know that I could add anything to what I have 
already said. I am quite sure that I was present when Mr. McClintic discussed 
this with Mr. Hammer. I do not think that I had any discussion of my own 
with Mr. Hammer in regard to it. 

Q. Well, is it your recollection that that letter expresses about the views that 
Mr. Hammer gave to Mr. McClintic as to what be thought was necessary?— 
A. (Examining letter.) This letter of Mr. Hammer’s is more in detail than I re¬ 
member. The principal point that I remember is that Mr. McClintic was very 
indignant over the amount of grinding, and that in telling Mr. Hammer about 
it Mr. Hammer could not understand why any such grinding was necessary, 
and that the idea was that any slight inaccuracies that might occur—and that 
any necessity for any grinding—would be obviated by the use of water stops. 
My recollection of it is that, according to Mr. Hammer’s idea, there would be 
practically no grinding. 

Q. I want to introduce the letter from Mr. Hammer to Mr. Goldmark, dated 
September 13, 1912. This will be General Exhibit No. 6. 

(The paper was so marked.) 

Q. (Continuing.) The particular part of this letter to which I wish to call 
your attention is as follows: 

“ I received a copy of Mr. McClintic’s letter of the 12th instant to you, in 
reference to the Contractors’ change in their management on the Isthmus; also 
alluding to the matter of grinding the ends of the leaves. 

As stated in Mr. McClintic’s letter, he discussed this matter with me; and 
as I have heard no reason, it could not be explained by me why a great amount 
of grinding has been found necessary, although it was realized that grinding 
would be necessary to remove high spots so as to give the reaction castings a 
good bearing, especially against these parts of the end plates that are backed 
up by the reaction frames. 

The letter of September 19, from Mr. Goldmark to Mr. Hammer, appears to 
have been in reply to these letters from Mr. Hammer. 

I wish to introduce a letter dated July 2, 1912, from Mr. Goldmark to Mr. 
Hammer, which has to do with the erection of the first leaf, and shows how the 
first leaf went together. That letter will go in as General Exhibit No. 7. 

(The letter referred to was marked “General Exhibit No. 7.”) 

Q. (Continuing.) I will not read the whole of this letter unless you would 
like to hear it. 

(Witness reads letter.) 

Q. (Continuing.) Now, at the time this subject of the excessive grinding was 
taken up by Mr. Goldmark, the first leaf had been erected and the results indi¬ 
cated in that letter had been obtained from the first leaves. Now, as I under¬ 
stand from your testimony, the conversation with Mr. Hammer in relation to 
the subject of excessive grinding took place after the time that he must have 

received that letter and that report from Mr. Goldmark; is that true?_A. 

Well, I could not say; I have not the dates. 

Q. Well, that letter dated July 2 would be received by Mr. Hammer about 
July 10?—A. When was this other correspondence? 

Q. This other correspondence that I showed was in the following September. 

Mr. Sterrett. September 19. 

Mr. Pendergrass. Well, I would say that Mr. Hammer must have had that 
letter; that letter was from Mr. Goldmark to Mr. Hammer, was it? 

Judge Harrah. Yes. I want to ask you. then, if in that conversation with 
Mr. Hammer anything was said by Mr. Goldmark or Mr. McClintic or Mi- 
Hammer as to the fit of the leaves that had already been erected? 

Mr. Pendergrass. I do not remember. 

Q. You do not remember whether that was discussed or not?—A. No. 

Q. That is all, I think, on the subject of grinding. I simply want to bring 
out the facts, if any of you know about the facts, as to whether or not the 
question of the accuracy of the fit of those leaves was discussed with Mr. 
Hammer, and whether or not that was advanced as a reason why there was 
excessive grinding being done on the Isthmus. 

Mr. AVolfel. I knew Mr. Hammer had a letter, because as soon as the first 
water test was made he came to me, seeming very much delighted; he said. “ l 
have just got a letter from Mr. Goldmark telling me the water tests have just 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 325 

been made and were entirely satisfactory, and everything is all right.” And 
that is all I know. 

Judge Harrah. Well, did you ever discuss the question of excessive grinding 
with Mr. Hammer? 

Mr. Wolfel. We all had been talking about the thing all the time. Would 
you want, Mr. Pendergrass, to say anything about the waiving of the shop 
planing of the bent plates? You can continue with that general statement you 
were making. 

Mr. Pendergrass. When the field planing was waived the matter of planing 
of end plates in the shop had not been settled, so that the material for the 
end plates was not ordered, except for the one leaf, which plate was necessary 
lor assembling the leaf in the yard, as it was expected that that assembling 
in (lie yard would demonstrate that there was no necessity of planing these 
plates in the shop. The waiving of the planing of the end plates in the shop 
was, I believe, obtained by Mr. Wolfel after this leaf had been assembled, and 
instructions then given to me to order material without any allowance for 
planing for the balance of the leaf. 

By Judge IIarrah : 

Q. Was the material ordered in that way?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you plane the first leaf?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Then, the test in the shop to determine whether the shop planing would 
be waived or not was made with a leaf that had not been planed or treated in 
your shop?—A. That is my recollection, that the plate was not planed in the 
first leaf. 

Judge Harrah. Is that correct, Mr. Wolfel? 

Mr. Wolfel. Entirely correct; yes. 

Mr. Pendergrass. Because if it had been planed it would not have shown 
anything. That is a matter of record in the material ordered. 

Judge Harrah. Then the end plates that were subsequently ordered for the 
other gates were the same character of plates, rolled in the same way, that the 
end plates on the first test leaf had been rolled; is that right? 

Mr. Wolfel. That is correct, except for some of the lighter leaves and some 
of the heavier leaves the thickness was changed slightly, to correspond to the 
thickness of the bent plates, in order to keep the distance from the end plate 
to the girder always at right angles. You see, if the end plate was thinner it 
made the bent plate a little heavier; if the end plate got thicker it made the 
bent plate a little lighter, because we wanted to keep the castings all the same. 
This is brought out in our claim, page 18. 

Judge Harrah. Is that right, Mr. Price? 

Mr. Price. That is correct; that is the way they were ordered, as shown by 
the drawings. (See Exhibits 15, 16, 17, Goldmark.) 

Judge Harrah. That they ordered the material with a view, and of such 
thickness, that there would be no allowance- 

Mr. Price. No allowance for planing. 

Mr. Winterbottom. That is right. 

Mr. Wolfel. Mr. Winterbottom, when you went over the drawings with Mr. 
Hammer for approval, was he not very particular always to scrutinize the 
workmanship? 

Mr. Winterbottom. Mr. Hammer was always very particular as to any notes 
regarding the workmanship on the drawings. One of the first things he always 
looked to with regard to the approval of a drawing was the workmanship— 
any notes regarding planing, or any special shop operation, or any operation 
that had to be done in the field. 

Mr. Wolfel. Now, these drawings showing these end and bent plates as 
submitted and approved by Mr. Hammer had no notation on them as to planing, 
either in the shop or in the field? 

Mr. Winterbottom. There was no notation on the drawing regarding planing 
either in the shop or the field. 

Mr. Wolfel. Referring to the agreement of August 8, 1910, and the changes 
made by the same, have you made a study of how these changes affected the 
weight and the cost to the Commission? 

Mr. Pendergrass. Yes, sir. We prepared an itemized list showing the 
material added or deducted on account of the various changes as outlined in 
this agreement, together with the increased cost or saving to the Commission, 
based on the contract prices for various items. 






326 


McC LIN TIC-MARSH ALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


By Judge Harrah : 

Q. Mr. Pendergrass, does the testimony that you are starting to give now 
refer to the estimate that you furnished as to the changes in cost for labor and 
material that resulted from the agreement made by Mr. Goldmark and Mr. 
Wolf el, dated August 8, 1910, and other changes shown in the claim and 
furnished to me when I was here examining the books?—A. This is not the 
same. [Examining paper.] Some of the figures in this are also used in that 
other. 

Q. Well, do you expect this to take the place of and operate as a substitute 
for that estimate given here?—A. No, sir. 

Q. All right; go ahead.—A. This summary indicates a net saving to the Com¬ 
mission of 422,410 pounds, and a saving to the Commission of $26,678.62. 

Q. Mr. Pendergrass, I would like you to put that in as an exhibit and explain 
the purpose of it. 

(The paper so referred to was marked “ Exhibit No. 3, Pendergrass.”) 

This testimony shows that the subject of waiving the field planing 
was discussed at the time the agreement of August 8, 1910, was made. 
(See p. 381 of this report, quoting from Mr. Goldmark’s report, vol. 
1 of the testimony, p. 89.) It also shows that the Contractor under¬ 
stood that paragraph 16 of the agreement of August 8, 1910, was 
authority for waiving the planing in the field. It was understood, 
however, that the high spots should be ground off'. Mr. Wolf el, in 
his testimony quoted on page 391 of this report, page 176 of his testi¬ 
mony, states: 

I did expect to have to grind oft' the high spots within a limit that was ob¬ 
tainable under the conditions of the sun playing around these leaves. I claim 
that the limitation of one-sixty-fourth inch imposed upon us by Mr. Goldmark 
was beyond the limit that could have been obtained by planing; and we would 
have to spend more money on that grinding than the planing would have 
cost us. 

It also shows that Mr. Hammer’s action in approving the drawings 
without any provision for shop planing was in accordance with what 
Mr. Goldmark considered the proper action to take. (See p. 382 of 
this report, quoting from Mr. Goldmark’s report, p. 91, as follows:) 

I am entirely satisfied that Mr. Hammer did well, if he did so, in recom¬ 
mending to the Contractor to abandon shop planing. 

Mr. Goldmark also states, page 382 of this report: 

If, in addition to this, he told them that planing of these plates in the field 
would be waived because the plates were straight and smooth before manu¬ 
facture (see Wolfel’s letter, p. 17), he made a mistake, because he could not 
possibly tell what the surface of these plates would be after they were erected 
in the field and riveted up. Owing to possible errors in the length of the 
girders, in their setting, and other errors in erection, differences in the thick¬ 
ness of the combined end and bent plates, changes due to riveting, etc., there 
was no one who could at that time foresee what would be the condition of those 
plates after erection. 

The evidence shows that the Contractor believed that the planing 
in the field had been waived under proper authority. He was 
allowed to order his material of such thickness as to indicate clearly 
that no planing was to be done in the field. The only grinding 
which, under any view of the case, the Contractor might reasonably 
be expected to do was such as was necessary to secure a surface for 
the end plates that would have given a bearing for the end reaction 
castings equal to that which could have been obtained by planing 
in the field. 

The testimony referred to in the Contractor’s brief, pages 117 to 
128, establishes the fact that much unnecessary grinding was done. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


327 


and that a great deal more grinding was required than the Con¬ 
tractor might reasonably have expected under paragraph 10 of the 
agreement of August 8, 1910. 

That part of the Contractor’s claim, page 49 of the claim, page 
117 of his brief, in which he states that “ they insisted upon having 
the work executed in a spirit contrary to the previous agreement,” is 
substantially established. 

The remainder of this claim, which states that, “And plso on hav¬ 
ing work done distinctly not called for in the specifications,” relates 
to the grinding done on the nickel-steel bearing plates. There is 
no provision in paragraph 123 of the specifications, quoted on page 
370 of this report, for grinding these bearing plates. The only 
reason that could be given for requiring these plates to be ground 
would be under the provisions in the specifications calling for first- 
class workmanship. From any view of the case, however, it seems 
to be pretty well established from the testimony that unnecessary 
grinding was required on these plates. (See testimony referred to 
by the Contractor in his brief, pp. 122 to 128, inclusive.) This 
part of the claim is substantially established. 

The Contractor does not, however, give any and can not give any 
specific evidence as to the amount of excess grinding. In his dis¬ 
tribution of the cost the grinding was not kept separate. It was 
taken up as a part of the machine work, and the claim is based upon 
the theory that one-third of the total cost of the machine work 
at Miraflores was grinding, and thr.t three-fourths of this grinding 
was unnecessary, and this amount is deducted from the total cost at 
Miraflores in establishing the normal cost to be applied at the other 
lock sites. In the distribution of cost given by the Contractor the 
amount of machine work as stated at the three lock sites was $270,- 
603.11. The Contractor claims, however, that this is not accurate 
as to Pedro Miguel and Gatun. If this should be accepted as an 
accurate statement of the amount of machine work done and one- 
third of it taken as representing the grinding, the grinding would 
cost $90,201.70. One-fourth of this would be $22,550.42, as repre¬ 
senting all the grinding that the Contractor claims he ought to have 
done. If we take the claim at Miraflores alone, the amount of 
grinding that he claims he should have done would amount to $9,991. 
On the basis of this claim, if applied to the other two lock sites 
and a small allowance made for more grinding at Gatun and Pedro 
Miguel than was done at Miraflores, the amount of his claim for 
excess grinding would be about $105,000. If we take the grinding 
by leaves, it would amount to $1,427 a leaf at Miraflores. The excess 
grinding for which claim is made would amount to $1,070 per leaf 
at Miraflores. 

Mr. Goldmark in his report states that there are about 25,000 
square feet in all the gates. Under the claim of the Contractor 
the average excess grinding on each square foot of these plates, allow¬ 
ing a reasonable sum for grinding the nickel-steel bearing plates, 
would amount to about $3 a square foot, and the total grinding 
under the assumed basis of the Contractor would amount to an 
average of about $4,500 per square foot for the entire surface of 
the end plates. 

If the grinding was costing $20 per day per leaf at Gatun, for the 
amount of money the Contractor claims to have expended for labor 


328 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


in grinding he could have ground 71 days on each leaf. It is not 
probable that he spent more than $15 or $20 a day in grinding on 
any one leaf, and it is not probable from the evidence that on the 
average he ground anything like the time that he would have been 
required to grind in order to have spent the large sum of money that 
he assumes he did spend. 

It seems that the claim for excessive grinding, in the manner in 
which the amount is arrived at, is entirely too much. In arriving 
at the amount that should be allowed to cover the excess for grinding, 
the estimate of the Contractor as to what it would have cost him to 
have done the planing—shown on page 371 of this report—and the 
amount of extra shop and field labor that he assumed and the saving 
to the Commission by reason of the changes made by the agreement 
of August 8, 1910, will be taken into consideration. 

From the data that your committee has been able to obtain in 
connection with the grinding, and as to what it actually cost, it is 
impossible to do better than make what would seem to be a reason¬ 
able estimate as to the amount of the necessary grinding and the 
amount of the excess grinding. If the excess grinding should be put 
at $400 per leaf, it would just about equal the extra charge and field 
labor that the Contractor undertook to do as a consideration for 
waiving the end planing. It is thought that it would be just, fair, 
and equitable to so adjudicate the claim that the Contractor will be 
reimbursed to the extent that he undertook to do extra shop and 
field work by reason of the grinding of the end plates, with a small 
allowance in addition for the extra work and expense that he was put 
to in grinding the nickel-steel bearing plates. 

The excess grinding at Miraflores, in fixing the normal on page 75 
of the Contractor’s claim, will be fixed at $500 a leaf for all of the 
leaves at Miraflores, or $14,000. This excess is arrived at as hereto¬ 
fore stated, and is placed at the sum of $14,000 in order that the Con¬ 
tractor may receive the benefit of the consideration which he gave 
up for the agreement of August 8, 1910, and also in order that he 
may be reimbursed a reasonable sum for the excess grinding that he 
was required to do on the nickel-steel bearing plates. 

One of the reasons for making the reduction in the claim for the 
excess grinding is because it is not believed that the Contractor 
spent as much money for grinding as his claim indicates he did. 
See testimony of J. W. Wright taken at Balboa December 1, 1915, 
volume 39. It is believed that the amount to be deducted from the 
actual expense at Miraflores in arriving at a normal will result in an 
equitable and just allowance as to the amount that should be paid 
for excessive grinding and finishing of the end plates and the nickel- 
steel bearing plates. In other words, an effort has been made to so 
adjust the claim that the Contractor will receive the consideration 
which he gave up for waiving the end planing in the field under 
paragraph 16 of the agreement of August 8, 1910, and which he sub¬ 
sequently lost by reason of the excessive grinding required, and be 
reimbursed also for such grinding as he did in excess of that from 
which he was relieved by the agreement of August 8, 1910, and also 
for such excess grinding as he did on the nickel-steel bearing plates. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


329 


The following references are given to the testimony covering the 
subject of planing the end plates and the grinding: 

Goldmark, volume 1, pages SG to 98. 

Wolf el, volume 7, pages 10G to 153; pages 106 to 123, quoted in this report. 

Wolf el, volume 7, pages 251 to 252. 

Wolfel, volume 7, pages 144 to 149. 

Pendergrass, volume 15, pages 18 to 28, quoted in this report. 

Oourter, volume 16, pages 68 and 79. 

Hess, volume 17, pages 54 and 75. 

E. K. Morse, volume 19, pages 11 to 13. 

Childers, volume 32, pages 55 to 156. 

Dumville, volume 32, pages 28, 102, 103, 111. 

Guynn, volume 32, pages 177, 178, 179, 1S7, 219, 222. 

(See volume of letters copies from files, pp. 154, 132, 133, and 134.) 

In volume 7, pages 123 to 153, is found the technical discussion of 
the feasibility of grinding or planing the entire surface on end plate 
to a true plane on account of the effect of variations in temperature. 

CLEANING. 

On page 49 of the claim the Contractor states: 

That on account of the inadequate shop painting and unreasonable inspec¬ 
tion, the Contractor was obliged to do unnecessary interior cleaning. 

In arriving at the normal at Miraflores, page 75 of the claim, the 
Contractor makes the following deduction from the actual expense 
covering the item of cleaning. 

(g) Excess cleaning . one-half of $14,800 ($14,856), $7,428. 

On pages 81 and 82. under the heading of “ Excess Cleaning,” the 
Contractor states: 

( g ) Excess cleaning .—The Contractor spent at Miraflores $14,800 for clean¬ 
ing the interior of the leaves. One-half of this cleaning had to be done on 
account of the paint called for by the Commission deteriorating under the 
climatic conditions on the Isthmus. 

The Contractor therefore claims one-half of $14,856, or $7,428. 

On page 50 of the claim as a part of the unreasonable demands 
made by the inspectors on the Isthmus, the Contractor states: 

(e) On account of the inefficiency of the single shop coat of paint and 
the unreasonable demands of the inspectors on the Isthmus, the Contractor 
was required to clean the inside of the leaves, before the bitumastic enamel 
was applied, in a manner not contemplated by the specifications or demanded 
by the paint contractor. 

The main facts on which the Contractor relies in support of his 
claim for excess cleaning are stated on pages GO, 61, and 62 of the 
claim, and are quoted below: 

The unnecessary cleaning of the interior of the leaves was another item of 
large expense to the Contractor. 

Owing to the climatic conditions and to the kind of paint which was 
applied to the material on the inside of the leaves at the shop, there was 
considerable rust formed during the period of erection, which largely in¬ 
creased the amount of cleaning on the inside of the leaves before enameling. 

From the time this work started at Gatun, the Contractor’s men in charge 
continually complained of the inspectors. This matter was taken up re¬ 
peatedly with Mr. Guynn and Mr. Dumville, but the Contractor was unable 
to get any relief and the inspection continued to grow so much more rigid on 
this part of the work that it was well nigh impossible to get a leaf passed. 


330 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


After leaf No. 6 had been rejected, with the statement that if the Contractor 
would give it two more days’ cleaning they would again inspect it, the super¬ 
intendent of the Contractor in charge at once inspected the pari of the leaf 
rejected and found it clean. He ordered all men out of the leaf, and asked 
Mr. Dumville to accept the leaf and not allow the man .ho had condemned it 

do any more inspecting; otherwise he would demand an investigation. Mr. 
Dumville refused this request. The matter was taken up with the chairman, 
and Col. Dixon was appointed to inspect the leaf and report to the chairman. 
The inspection wfts made and the leaf accepted, with little or no additional 
cleaning. 

The method of inspecting the leaves for inside cleaning was to rub the hand 
over the surface, and if it became soiled the leaf was rejected. 

The expense incurred by the Contractor for cleaning the interior of these 
leaves is as follows: 

Miraflores, 28 leaves, $17,551, or $627 per leaf. 

Pedro Miguel, 24 leaves, $14,883, or $621 per leaf. 

Gatun, 40 leaves, $77,269, or $1,932 per leaf. 

This bears out above statement about the kind of cleaning the Contractor 
had to do at Gatun, and incidentally bears out the previous statement as to the 
severeness of the Gatun inspection. 

A large part of the cleaning in the first place was caused by the bitumastic 
paint, called for in the specifications, being inadequate to meet the climatic 
conditions at the Isthmus. This is borne out by correspondence with Mr. 
Jewel, also by Mr. Hammer’s letter of June 1, 1911, in which he states: 

“ Referring to lock-gate material received on the Isthmus, I beg to call your 
attention to some serious trouble found with material painted with bitumastic 
solution: 

“ I have been informed in telegram of this date that large rust spots have 
occurred within a few weeks after unloading the material on the Isthmus. The 
bitumastic solution used for the shop coat is, therefore, considered unsatis¬ 
factory, and no more bitumastic solution must be used on material before the 
matter has been investigated.” 

This is further borne out by a supplemental agreement entered 
into December 6, 1911, between the Commission and the Contractor, 
in which the Commission agrees to pay the Contractor $158,120 to 
change the bitumastic paint on the interior of the leaves originally 
specified to bitumastic enamel. The Contractor is sure that on 
account of the inefficiency of the paint called for, even at Miraflores 
and Pedro Miguel, the cost for this interior cleaning was at least 
doubled, while at Gatun, of course, the Contractor had a big addi¬ 
tional waste of money, pure and simple, due to the overexacting con¬ 
ditions imposed upon the Contractor by the inspectors. 

Paragraphs 10-t to 111 of the original specifications cover the sub¬ 
ject of painting and cleaning very thoroughly. Paragraph 105 pro¬ 
vides specifically the manner in which the inside of the leaf shall be 
treated. This paragraph is quoted below: 

105. The surface inside of the leaf shall be treated as follows: Before ship¬ 
ment from the shops in the United States all metallic surfaces which after 
erection will form the interior surfaces of the air and water chambers, including 
the girders, sheathing, beams, intercostals. vertical frames, piping, etc., shall 
receive as a first coat one coat of bitumastic solution made by the American 
Bitumastic Enamel Co., of Philadelphia, and applied cold to the satisfaction of 
the manufacturers. An exception from this shall be made in the case of the 
girders at the bottom of the gate, which shall receive a thin shop coat of the 
red-lead paint specified below, to be replaced by a cement covering which shall 
be applied as specified in detail hereafter. The upper surface of all the other 
horizontal girders in the interior, and all vertical surfaces to a height of 10 
inches above the centers of the girders shall, after the final erection of the gates, 
be coated with bitumastic enamel made by the manufacturers named above 
and applied hot by them in their most approved manner. All other interior 
surfaces shall, after the gates are erected, receive a second coat of bitumastic 
solution applied cold. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


331 


The testimony upon which the Contractor relies in support of his 
claim for excess cleaning is referred to and commented on on pages 
lo.) to 140 of his brief. The references as to cleaning and painting 
are as follows (see p. 140 of Contractor’s brief) : 


Testimony of— 


Mr. Hess. 

Mr. Guynn... 
Mr. Wright... 
Mr. Dumville 

Mr. Howe_ 

Mr. Childers.. 


Volume. 

Page references. 

Testimony of— 

Volume. 

Page references. 

17 

67 to 68. 

Mr. Mellon. 

35 

43 and 44. 

32 

182 to 184. 

Mr. Roberts. 

35 

53. 

32 

131, 134, and 139. 

Mr. Goldmark. 

8 

81, 82, and 182 to 

32 

104 to 106 and 117. 



192. 

32 

75 and 84. 

Do. 

1 

108 to 117 (report). 

32 

55, 56, and 66. 





Mr. Guynn’s report to Col. Hodges dated Dec. 15, 1914, page 19. 

After carefully examining the files in relation to the subject of 
cleaning, Mr. Goldmark, in his report,, volume 1 of the testimony, 
pages 108 to 117, inclusive, states: 

(d) Claim 4 .—Unnecessary interior cleaning. 

Claim 4, page 9, of the Contractor’s claims: 

“ That on account of inadequate shop painting and unreasonable inspection 
the Contractor was obliged to do unnecessary interior cleaning. On account of 
the above the Contractor was seriously delayed and put to much extra expense.” 

This claim is described more in detail on pages 60 to 62. 

The painting of the interior to the gates was governed by sections 104 to 111 
of the specifications circular 576. All material was cleaned in the shop by sand¬ 
blasting or by pickling. All material for the interior was painted one coat of 
bitumastic solution, applied cold, in the shop. According to the original con¬ 
tract, the upper surface of all horizontal girders, except the bottom one, in the 
interior, and all vertical surfaces to si height of 10 inches above the girders 
were to be cosited after the final erection of the gates with bitumastic enamel, 
applied hot. By supplemental agreement of December 6, 1911, this application 
of hot enamel was extended to cover all interior surfaces of the gates. It was 
also specified in the original contract that— 

“ If at any time before erection any part of the coated surfaces becomes so 
injured by the weather or otherwise as to require recoating, this shall be 
promptly done, free of charge, to the satisfaction of the chief engineer or his 
authorized representatives. 

“ In no case shall the paint be applied out of doors in rainy, misty, or freezing 
weather, and all surfaces on which paint is applied must be at the time dry 
and clean.” 

It should be noted that this material was not ordinary paint, but a special 
compound requiring great care in its application and extremely expensive as 
compared with any other coating in use at the present time. The total cost of 
painting the interior amounted to about $350,000 for approximately 3,000,000 
square feet of area, or at the rate of over 11 cents per square foot. This is 
three to four times as much as it would have cost to paint the interior with 
three coats of red lead or other paints in the same manner as the outside of 
the gates was treated. (See letter of the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. 
to the American Bitumastic Enamel Co. of Sept. 20, 1911, file 84-C-81-P, pt. I.) 

The surfaces tc which coatings of this kind are applied must always be abso¬ 
lutely free from any other kind of paint, from rust, grease, loose material, or any 
form of dirt. In this respect various coatings differ. (See letter of the Ameri¬ 
can Bitumastic Enamel Co. to Henry Goldmark of Jan. 24, 1910, file 84-C-81-P. 
pt. I, “ nl o insure a perfect and satisfactory job, all the surfaces of the steel 
must be thoroughly clean and dry and free from all oil paints,” also letter of 
the American Bitumastic Enamel Co. to Henry Goldmark of Feb. 22, 1910, 
“ We are always careful to dry and get a clean surface.”) 

Before adopting this paint the writer had some talk and correspondence with 
Mr. Henry Williams, naval constructor, United States Navy, and a recognized 
authority "on paints as applied to ship work, and was impressed by him with the 
necessity of thorough cleaning. After the work was started on the Isthmus the 



























382 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


writer had a further conversation with Mr. W. G. Comber, resident engineer. 
Panama Canal, who had had large experience in the use of compounds of this 
kind on barges and dredges with the Mississippi River Commission. Mr. 
Comber told the writer that absolute cleanness was essential in order to obtain 
results worth having, otherwise it would not be worth while to use this kind of 
paint. He said that in their practice they found it necessary to clean by the 
sand-blast a small portion of the metal at a time, apply the coating before this 
portion had a chance to get dirty or rusty, then proceed with the cleaning and 
painting of successive parts. 

Our experience on the Isthmus fully bore out the necessity of getting as clean 
a surface as possible before applying bitumastic enamel. Even after using 
great care a number of spots were found in the upper guard gates and other 
gates at Gatun, which were personally inspected by the writer, and on which 
large blisters formed on a number of different girders. On removing these it 
appeared that the surface of the material underneath had not been perfectly 
cleaned. 

The amount of cleaning required in any given case and the condition of the 
surface which should be insisted upon are, of course, matters upon which judg¬ 
ments may differ. As a matter of fact, the intention when the specifications 
were written was to treat the material in such a way that the sand-blasted 
surface, which was absolutely clean in the shop, should at no time become ex¬ 
posed to rust. In other words, that the bitumastic solution applied in the shop, 
supplemented by such additional painting as might be necessary in the field, 
should protect the steel until the hot enamel could be applied to it permanently 
after erection. 

This condition of affairs by no means prevailed. Sand blasting or pickling 
was done with great care in the shop, so that no scale, rust, or other impurity 
remained on the material before it received the shop coat. In case any oil or 
other material had become attached which the sand blasting might not remove, 
gasoline was used in order to get a perfectly clean surface. As a matter of 
fact, the bitumastic solution did not prove successful in protecting the metal 
even until its arrival on the Isthmus, and after it reached there it deteriorated 
still more rapidly (see letter of Col. Hodges to general purchasing officer of 
June 5, 1911, file S4-C-81-P, Pt. I), disappearing, as it were, from the surface 
of the metal. I believe that this condition was worst in the early shipments 
and that a somewhat more careful painting under the direction of the manufac¬ 
turers of the paint at the shops improved conditions in subsequent shipments. 

The tops of girders and some of the smaller parts seemed most badly affected. 
Some portions of the steel remained in quite good condition. Under the clause 
of the contract given above the Contractor repainted, in some cases several times, 
a great deal of this material, but it proved impossible to reach all parts without 
interfering seriously with other work. The result was that these surfaces, 
instead of remaining absolutely protected, rusted more or less before the gates 
were erected. 

Many of the gates remained unfinished for a long period of time, months and 
even years elapsing until the final paint was done. The result was that when 
they started to apply the hot solution the interior of the gates was in very bad 
condition. (See letter of Col. Hodges to Mr. Sterrett of Oct. 21, 1912, file 
84-C-81-P, Pt. II, referring to the poor condition of the interior, especially at 
Gatun, asking him to proceed with cleaning the same.) 

On November 5, 1912, Mr. Guynn made a report to the writer on the condi¬ 
tion of the paint at Gatun, with which he inclosed a detailed report from In¬ 
spector Hastings, giving the condition of the material in gates, leaves 9 and 25, 
leaf 9 being in the lower chamber and leaf 25 in the upper chamber. Mr. Guynn 
in his letter says: 

“ This report is a fair average of the condition of nearly all the leaves at 
Gatun. Mr. Hastings reports leaf 9, first panel, rivets beginning to rust and pit. 
2i inches water standing, with rubbish, bolts, and dirt, upon bottom girder: 
second panel, girder badly scaled and pitted, also angles; third panel, girder 
badly scaled, rivets pitted, and similarly for practically all the girders. He says 
in this leaf, from the tenth panel up, the girders shows lots of scale, rivets badly 
inerustated, especially on chord angles. Leaf No. 25, first panel, rivet heads 
pitted; second panel, local scale on sheathing nearly one thirty-second inch 
thick, top of girder pitted. Near sounding pipe, top of girder badly scaled, and 
similarly for all other panels. Near top of gate all chord angles are getting 
badly scaled and rivets pitted. This leaf is full of dirt and steel cuttings, Which 
hold the moisture entering from frequent rains.” 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


333 


At about this time the writer personally examined one or two of the leaves 
toward the upper end of the lock. A question had arisen as to the extreme 
severity of Inspector Hastings’s inspection. The leaves at that time were in 
many places very dirty, with much loose paint, rust, pitting, a considerable 
amount of oil, chips from the reaming of the rivet holes, and other foreign 
material. A thorough cleaning was imperative. Some confusion had arisen at 
the time from the desire of the paint contractors to push their work on these 
leaves prior to thorough cleaning. After examining the leaves, and especially 
after they had applied their paint over a girder that was badly rusted, I insisted 
that they should not enter a leaf until all the cleaning in it had been satisfac¬ 
torily done and the leaf accepted as being clean. The necessity for cleaning 
was referred to in letter from the writer to Mr. L. L. Jewel, dated February 26, 
1912, tile 17, No. 3, and also in a letter from Mr. Rousseau, acting chairman, to 
Mr. Sterrett, of January 15, 1913, tile 84-C-81-P, Part II, which last letter 
covers the subject very fully. In it he says: 

“ I understand that the inspectors in charge have found much difficulty in 
obtaining the desired results, namely, such cleaning of the surfaces as shall 
leave a mere discoloration of the metal, but no rust that can be removed. At 
the present time at Gatun, and also to some extent at Pedro Miguel, a large 
number of leaves are standing with their interior surfaces in bad condition.” 

A decided effort was made at this time by the Contractor to reduce the 
amount of cleaning. I fully realized that it was a very expensive matter for 
them, but I did not think then, and I do not think now, that any more was 
required than was necessary. 

It was, however, difficult and extremely disagreeable work for the men em¬ 
ployed in doing the cleaning and the inspecting. They worked in absolute dark¬ 
ness, hot and confined spaces, by the light of a candle. The fact remains that 
no means were used to remove the material except the ordinary wire brush 
and scraper and small brushes for handling the debris as it was loosened. As 
the material had been sand blasted, there was no rolling-mill scale, and it was, 
in my opinion, absolutely necessary that all material on the steel, except sound 
paint adhering perfectly, should be removed. . 

There is no doubt whatsoever that the fact that the shop coat of paint did not 
give satisfactory results added considerably to the cost of cleaning the interior, 
although in view of the fact that the erection occupied a long period of time; 
that many of the parts were exposed to the weather a long time; that a large 
number of chips and much oil and dirt accumulated in the gates, the getting 
of the gates into condition would in any event have involved a great deal of 
labor. 

With regard to the claim of the Contractors that the inspection was more 
severe at Gatun than elsewhere, I would say that I have never thought so, 
although I spent much time at all the locks conferring with the inspectors on 
this very subject, while the chief inspector was, of course, in close touch at 
all times. The reason why there was less expense at Pedro Miguel and Mira- 
tiores was, I think, that the material reached the Isthmus in better condition; 
that it was erected and painted without being stored as long a time as at 
Gatun; and also on account of the climatic conditions, which were far more 
severe at Gatun. There was no doubt in my mind at the time that the interior 
of the gates in the Pacific division were never in as bad shape as those at 
Gatun. 

Tiie total cost of the cleaning at Gatun is given as $77,269. I have no means 
of checking this at present, but recollect that at the time I estimated that it 
would be at least $50,000, basing this estimate upon the number of men they had 
at work, etc. 

I have no data as to cost in the other locks. 

The use of the bitumastic solution as a shop paint was prescribed in the 
specifications, the Contractor having no part in its selection and no option as 
to whether he would use it or not. A considerable part of the cleaning was 
made necessary by the poor quality of this paint. Just how much, it is impos 
sible to say, but I am inclined to think that if red lead had been used the 
cleaning at Pedro Miguel and Miraflores would have been reduced by about 
one-half and at Gatun by about two-thirds. 

In the application of this shop coat and in doing the work generally the in¬ 
structions of the American Bitumastic Enamel Co. were followed. They ob- 
iected to the application of red lead or any other paint at the shop to those 
surfaces which were to be treated with their enamel in the field. They were 


334 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


asked to permit this in order to obviate the use of two kinds of paint in the 
shop—red lead for exterior and bitumastic solution for the interior surface. 

A letter to the writer dated February 22, 1910, file 84-C-81/P, Part I, gives 
the American Bitumastic Co.’s objections. 

They were evidently at fault in recommending the solution for material 
which was to be exposed to the weather as this steel was prior to its final 
erection. 

For list of letters referring to that part of claim 4 concerned with 
“Unnecessary interior cleaning,’’ see page 117 of Mr. Goldmark’s 
report, volume 1. 

Soon after the material began to arrive on the Isthmus, on June 
5, 1911, Col. Hodges wrote to Maj. Boggs, the general purchasing 
officer, explaining that the bitumastic solution did not appear to be 
suitable to the climatic conditions on the Isthmus. This letter is 
quoted below (see vol. 4, No. 206—copies of letters) : 

On May 31 I sent you a cablegram, of which the following is a copy: 

“ Referring to section 105, Circular 576. Shop coat bitumastic solution. Ma¬ 
terial shows widespread rusting within few weeks after unloading. Appar¬ 
ently entirely worthless under our conditions. Unless paint manufacturers can 
make radical improvement immediately, we must cancel order. Take up 
directly with American Bitumastic Co., Philadelphia. See our letter to them 
dated May 22, 1911. Suggest sending Post there, if possible. Similar paint 
has been used in seagoing dredges. Immediate action imperative. Cable 
results.” 

The reason for this message was the fact that a considerable portion of the 
lock-gate material which has been received here within the last month shows 
extended rusting. As you are probably aware, according to Circular 576, two 
kinds of paint are to be applied by the Contractor in addition to the final 
field coat to be selected and furnished by the Commission after erection Is 
entirely completed, same to be applied by the Contractor free of charge for 
labor of application. In the shops at Pittsburgh all the material is to be 
cleaned of scale, etc., either by sand blasting or pickling. The original con¬ 
tract specified sand blasting throughout, but permission has been granted the 
Contractor since then to pickle certain parts instead of sand blasting them. 

In the shops all the surfaces of the metal which will form the interior sur¬ 
faces of the air and water chambers after erection are to be coated with 
bitumastic solution (one coat) as manufactured by the American Bitumastic 
Co. of Philadelphia, to be applied cold. After the gates are fully erected the 
upper surfaces of the horizontal girders in the interior and vertical surfaces 
to a height of 10 inches above the girders will be coated with bitumastic 
enamel, applied hot. After erection all other interior surfaces are to receive 
a second coat of bitumastic solution applied cold. All other material is painted 
in the shops with one coat of red lead and will receive a second coat of red 
lead after erection. 

The paint on all the material when received on the Isthmus appeared to be 
in good condition, excepting the bitumastic solution on certain of the girders 
which were exposed on the decks of the steamer, on which the paint had 
largely disappeared. No material was received here prior to May 1, so that 
it had not been on the Isthmus more than a month. The girders and other 
material were brought to the lock sites at Gatun and Pedro Miguel and there 
placed on skids awaiting erection. About two weeks ago some of the girders 
and intercostals painted with bitumastic solution appeared to be rusted. The 
girders were placed horizontally, three or four high. The lower girders which 
were protected by the upper girders did not appear to have rusted much. The 
uppermost upper surface of the top girder and some of the lower girders at 
their ends where they were less well protected by the top girders, showed ex¬ 
tended rusting and an apparent disappearance or thinning of the paint over 
the entire area in question. 

Similarly smaller parts which were coated with bitumastic enamel showed 
rusted spots especially horizontal surfaces. The vertical surfaces were properly 
protected by projecting flanges, angles, etc., and were in much better condition, 
in many cases perfect condition. All the parts coated with red lead also ap¬ 
peared to be in very much better condition, except where abraded by contact 
with some hard substance. The bitumastic material was selected as' being of 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


335 


exceptional excellence anti supplied exactly as requested by the manufac¬ 
turers of the paint. The combination of bitumastic solution applied cold and 
hitumastic enamel applied hot is exactly what was done in the dry dock 
Deivey and in many war and merchant ships, also in our two seagoing dredges. 

Since its arrival on the Isthmus the material has been exposed to a great 
deal of rain and alternating very hot sunshine, and clearly does not withstand 
these conditions at all, as the time of exposure has been very short. In view 
of the excellent reputation of the manufacturers and the widespread use of 
their product it seems fair that they should have an opportunity to explain 
the failure of their product and perhaps suggest some change by which better 
results can he obtained. 

The contractors are finishing about 150 tons of material per day, a large 
part of which is being painted with this paint, and it is quite necessary to 
arrive at some conclusion at once as to what is to he done on the rest of the 
lock gates, as well as the parts already painted with hitumastic solution. 

If the manufacturers can not promptly demonstrate that they can furnish a 
paint which will withstand our climate, it will, of course, be necessary to give 
up the use of this material and substitute red lead or some other paint in 
place of it. 

This letter is written in case the cablegram did not make the matter en¬ 
tirely clear and also to enable you to take up the subject intelligently with the 
manufacturers and Contractors. 

In a report of Col. Hodges, dated December 2, 1914, on this claim, 
he states (see p. 9, vol. 33-A) : 


( e) Page 50, as to the cleaning of the interior of the leaves: Much of this, 
which would not otherwise have been required, was made necessary by allowing 
the girders to stand around so long after delivery and before erection. This was 
due to the diatory methods of the Contractor. It was especially noticeable at 
Gatun, and is sufficient to account for any excessive cost of the cleaning there 
over what was done eleswhere. 

The Contractor states that much of the cleaning was due to the inefficiency 
of the shop coat of hitumastic solution called for in the specifications. The 
latter require the shop coat of paint to he bitumastic solution for the interior 
of the leaf and red lead for the other surface. They also require that “ If at 
any time before erection any part of the coated surfaces becomes so injured 
by the weather or otherwise as to require recoating, this shall he promptly 
done free of charge * * The contractor was therefore put upon notice 

both as to the character of the paint and the duty to keep the surfaces 
protected. 

There was a dispute as to the cleaning of certain of the leaves, which was 
settled in the main in favor of the Contractor. One of our inspectors proved 
to be at fault in the matter and was discharged. The requirements, however, 
were not, with the above possible exception, enforced more strictly than they 
should have been, so far as I know. The matter was often the subject of 
question between our force and the Contractor, but in the other cases the Con¬ 
tractor’s complaints were not considered well founded. 

Mr. Guynn, in his report of December 15, 1914, to Col. Hodges, 
states (see p. 10, vol. 33-A) : 


The inspectors were not unreasonable, nor did they require unnecessary 
cleaning on the interior of the gates. Further details will be given later. 

On pages 18, 19, 20, and 21 of his report (vol. 33-A), Mr. Guynn 
gives further details relative to the claim for excess cleaning. These 
pages are quoted below for easy reference: 

Referring to paragraph (e), page 50, “Fourth,” have to advise that during 
the early part of May, 1911, the material for the lock gates began arriving on 
the Isthmus. When this material arrived at the lock site it was noted that 
there was considerable rust on some of it, especially the girders and the paint 
that was applied in shop, in some cases, had disappeared entirely, leaving the 
material bare, same continuing to rust until repainted. This matter was taken 
up with Mr. Goldmark immediately, and after the same was investigated it 
was decided that the material would have to be taken care of in the field. 
Mr. Gray, the representative of the Bitumastic Enamels Co., whose paint had 


336 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


been applied in shop, arrived on the Isthmus later, and after a lengthy discus¬ 
sion with Mr Jewel, stated that he would clean and paint all of the material 
necessary as soon as it arrived at the lock site. 

Owing to the fact that the girders were piled five or six high, one on top of 
the other, and the cranes being busy erecting the gates, it was found impossible 
to paint the girders that were underneath, other than the chord angles, which 
were painted, therefore, these girders were not painted and continued to rust 
until the gates were erected and practically complete. 

During the months of June and July, 1912, the Bitumastic Enamels Co. began 
cleaning the material on the inside of the upper guard gates at Gatun, prepara¬ 
tory to painting with bitumastic solution and enamel, and from the beginning 
to the completion of the cleaning of these gates Mr. Gray continuously com¬ 
plained of the severity of the inspectors. These complaints being made so often 
I myself went into the leaves a number of times and found that the inspector 
was right in not accepting the leaves, dirt and rust being very much in evidence 
in each case. 

Finally the upper gates were painted, inspected, and accepted. Later on, 
when the paint contractors began cleaning the upper service gates in west 
chamber, leaves Nos. 35 and 36, they complained as before and to such extent 
that it was necessary for me to go into the leaves again and make another in¬ 
spection of all parts that were supposed to have been cleaned. I found the con¬ 
ditions about the same as was found in the upper guard gates—rust, scale, and 
dirt much in evidence—and after discussing the matter with Mr. Gray, of the 
Enamels Co., whose men were doing the cleaning at the time, I realized that it 
would be impossible to obtain satisfactory cleaning, as Mr. Gray stated that it 
was not up to him to clean the leaves, but up to the McClintic-Marshall Co. I 
then took the matter up with Mr. Childers, and he stated it was up to the 
Enamels Co. to do the cleaning. I then informed Mr. Childers that hereafter I 
would expect the McClintic-Marshall Co. to be responsible for the cleaning and 
that I would not consider Mr. Gray further in the matter. 

After considerable correspondence and wrangling between the Bitumastic 
Enamels Co. and the McClintic-Marshall Co. as to who should clean the interior 
of the gates before applying the bitumastic compound I was informed by Mr. 
Childers that he would take charge of the cleaning of the gates thereafter. 
After the Contractors took over the cleaning of the leaves Mr. Gray seemed to 
have changed his mind in reference to the cleaning and informed me that he 
would not apply his compounds over any other paint or uncleaned surfaces, and 
would expect the gates to be thoroughly cleaned when passed by the inspector. 

Owing to the length of time that the material was on the Isthmus, especially 
at Gatun, and with no cleaning or painting during the entire erection, or until 
the gates were practically completed, it can be readily seen that the material 
as a whole would be in a bad condition after being subjected for more than 12 
months, without protection, to the climatic conditions of the Isthmus. When 
the Contractors began cleaning the leaves there was considerable rust and scale 
throughout all of the leaves, and the top sides of the girders were badly pitted. 

Much difficulty was experienced in getting the Contractors to clean the 
material, which caused the inspectors to make frequent trips in the leaves, when 
once would have been sufficient if it had been cleaned properly. The inside of 
the leaves is extremely hot, and with a large number of negroes in it made it 
very disagreeable, and if anyone would stop to think they would realize the 
inspector would much prefer to pass or accept the work on ids first trip than to 
have to go through the same performance three or four times before accepting. 

Experience has shown that the greatest care must be exercised in cleaning the 
interior before applying bitumastic compounds; furthermore, after compounds 
were applied it was necessary to reinspect the entire interior very carefully in 
order to find out if there were any blisters or blemishes. I myself went into 
the leaves, Nos. 39 and 40, several months after the leaves had been entirely 
completed and found serious defects in the enamel which required correction, 
due, in my opinion, to applying the enamel on damp or wet surface. The in¬ 
spection of the leaves involved tedious and conscientious work. It would have 
been very much easier to pass work with merely a nominal supervision, but if 
the rusting of the steel was to be prevented there must be no weak places in 
the coating at any point. I also found that unless the cleaning was very 
thorough and care taken to avoid applying the coating to a wet or greasy sur¬ 
face that we could not get satisfactory results; therefore I do not believe that 
the inspectors required more cleaning than necessary, and statements made by 
the Contractors to the effect that the inspection test was that the inspectors 


McCLINTIC-MAESHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 337 

would rub their hands over the surfaces, and, in the event of soiling, work was 
rejected, is absolutely without foundation. 

Referring to paragraph 4, page 6, in reference to the rejection of leaf No. 6, 
ns to cleaning, will refer you to Col. Dixon’s report to the chairman and chief 
engineer in connection therewith. 

Referring to the difference in cost of cleaning the Contractors had to do at 
Gatun, will advise that some of the material was very rusty when it arrived at 
Gatun, and it was not protected during the entire erection period; while at 
Mirallores the material was in good condition when it was delivered and was 
erected very quickly, and in the interim the leaves, during erection, were 
cleaned occasionally of all debris, holts, washers, etc., while at Gatun this was 
not done. The climatic conditions are much worse on iron and steel on the 
Atlantic side than they are on the Pacific side, consequently it can he readily 
seen why the cost was greater at Gatun than Mirallores. 

Mr. Hess, the foreman of the Contractors at Gatun, cleaned the 
first set of leaves, as stated in pages 67 and 68 of volume 17 of testi¬ 
mony, quoted below: 

Now, I want to take up the cleaning. Did you do any of the cleaning of any 
of the leaves?—A. I cleaned the first set out. 

Q. You cleaned the first set out?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How did you find them?—A. Well, of course, it was rusted some; that is, 
the water getting down. It was not eaten, or anything like that; it was just 
the amount of burrs, and water had got on there. And we had to scrape them— 
that is, the lower set—where the water all went down, and later I had to 
scrape it. 

Q. Did you have very much cleaning to do on those first leaves?—A. Well, 
not so much; that is, after we got the burrs and everything like that out. 

Q. How long did it take you to clean those leaves; do you remember about 
how long?—A. Oh, well, I had men in there, I guess, for three weeks cleaning 
out; that is, a few men. 

Q. How would the inspectors inspect that cleaning?—A. They went all over 
it with their feelers and knives, and wherever they could pick a scale, or any¬ 
thing like that, it all had to be taken off. 

Q. They went inside of the leaf with a candle?—A. Oh, you bet, they had the 
candles—electric lights. If the electric light would not show it, why, they lit 
a candle to get in far enough. 

Q. Did you ever protest that you were being required to do too much clean¬ 
ing 7 —a. Well, I told them I did not think it was necessary to clean all the—■ 
that is, the paint, or anything like that, off. Of course, if anything was scaled 
I took it off. 

On pages 55 and 56 of volume 32 Mr. Childers gives his view of the 
claim for cleaning: 

Q. Page 60 of the claims, Mr. Childers (last paragraph, recleaning leaf 
No. 6) ; what can you say about that occurrence?—A. That statement prac¬ 
tically covers what occurred. I went through the leaf with Col. Dickson at 
the time he made his inspection. The only thing they found to which any excep¬ 
tion on earth could be taken—except a little dust in the corner—was the air- 
chamber girder, the scuppers that drain that; the dust and dirt had not been 
cleaned out of the scuppers. That was below the air-chamber girder. Possibly 
Col. Dickson made a report on it. 

Q. The top of page 61, first paragraph: The method of inspecting the leaves 
for inside cleaning was to rub the hand over the surface, and if it became soiled 
the leaf was rejected. Do you know that to be correct?—A. Only from the 
statement of our foreman in charge of the work. I never was there when they 
Were inspecting a leaf; but I have no reason to doubt that it is a fact from 
the look of the leaf they turned down. 

Q Do you remember anything about the first coat of paint which was put 
on the inside of the work at the shop called the bitumastic solution? Did you 
consider that that paint would stand up under the water?—A. It stood up very 
poorly here; it took only a short time after water settled on it to rust right 
through The bottom girder of each leaf was painted with red lead; on top of 
that went a coat of cement. If all that material instead had been painted with 
red lead there would not have been much cleaning required. 

29249°—H. Doc. 906, 64-1-22 



338 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


Q. Do you remember the condition of the bottom girder?—A. We had very 
little trouble in cleaning the bottom girders. 

Q. Do you think there would have been much cleaning to do if the interior 
had been painted with red lead?—A. Very little. 

Q. You notice on top of page G1 of the claims the expenses that this cleaning 
caused the Contractor and the wide difference in cost between what was done 
on the Pacific and Atlantic side, between Miraflores and Pedro Miguel, com¬ 
pared to Gatun. How do you account for that?—A. By the inspection. The 
reason I say that right offhand is that after the work was completed at Pedro 
Miguel we brought the man doing the cleaning to Gatun and he could not hold 
the job at all. 

Q. Did you consider that the leaves at Pedro Miguel were in as bad condi¬ 
tion as at Gatun.?—A. Yes. I believe the erection was commenced at Gatun 
about the middle of May, 1911, and we commenced at Pedro in August of that 
year, and the leaf was standing at one place as long as the other at the time 
the cleaning was commenced. 

In relation to the cleaning Mr. Wright stated on page 132, vol¬ 
ume 32: 

Q. On the cleaning of the leaves, Mr. Wright, quite a lot of money was spent 
at Miraflores; do you know the cause of that cleaning? Of course you had to 
take the rubbish out of these leaves?—A. I was supposed to clean the leaf, 
and we did clean it, and overcleaned it, and we should have got through with 
about half of the cleaning we did, because the steel was not dirty. 

Q. Was it rusty?—A. There was not very much rust. 

Q. Do you remember anything about the condition of the red-lead paint?— 
A. Most of the inside was painted with bitumastic solution except the bottom 
girder. 

Q. Was the red lead in better condition than the bitumastic solution?—A. 
I believe it was. 

Q. On page G1 of the claims, middle of the page (cleaning caused by bitu¬ 
mastic paint), how is that with respect to the material at Miraflores?—A. I 
never paid much attention to it. There were rust places up there, and I noti¬ 
fied Mr. Ilowe, the inspector, and they were painted before it went down in 
there with that black stuff. 

Q. Do you know how often that happened?—A. No. I didn’t have much 
trouble with the painting at Miraflores; just a few pieces. 

Mr. Wolfel. To give an idea of the cost of the painting at Miraflores, the 
28 leaves cost $17,551, or $627 per leaf. The 28 leaves have 440 compartments, 
and they are 4 feet G inches high; that makes the area to be cleaned per com¬ 
partment, allowing for 220 square yards, 440 compartments, into $17,551, makes 
about $40 per compartment; therefore the cleaning costs about 18 cents per 
square yard, and at the rate those colored fellows work—they got 16 cents per 
hour—it took one and one-eighth hours to clean 1 square yard; at that rate it 
would have taken about 16 days to clean the floor of this room. 

On page 134 Mr. Wright states: 

Q. In regard to cleaning the inside of the gate leaves, you stated it could 
have been done for half what it costs. In what way was the cleaning required, 
in your opinion, in excess?—A. It would have to be absolutely inside and clean. 
Every little obstacle taken out. 

Q. By wire brushes?—A. Wire brushes and whisk brooms. We never used 
a great many wire brushes, because we did not need them. 

On page 139 Mr. Wright states: 

Mr. Rousseau. At the top of page Gl, Mr. Wright, the first paragraph 
(method of inspecting leaves for inside cleaning), was that method followed at 
Miraflores?—A. That’s the way the inspectors most always did when they got 
inside of it, to tell whether it was dirty or not by rubbing their hands over it 
to see if it was dirty. 

Q. And if the hand was soiled the leaf was rejected?—A. Sure it was re¬ 
jected. 

Q. How many instances of that do you recollect?—A. Well, on various leaves 
the inspectors came out and would say the leaf was not clean. I would put the 
gang right back and clean it with white men whenever the inspector would say. 


McCLIN TIC-MAltSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


339 


Q. Were you ever down with the inspector?—A. I went down with him 
through the leaf several times. 

Q. How do you say he inspected it?—A. When he got inside the leaf he would 
rub his hand on the bottom and A frame and up on top, and if his hand had 
dirt on it the leaf was not clean. 

Q. What degree of dirt? Any appreciable amount of dirt?—A. I did not 
pay much attention to that. If his hand was soiled or dirty the leaf was dirty. 
My own hands were pretty dirty climbing over the ironwork and I would take- 
some waste along. 

Q. Did you ever see the inspector test the cleanness of the metal by rubbing 
waste on it?—A. I never saw him do that. I have taken him down in several 
leaves on the 82-foot leaves and he told me it was not clean. But I did not see 
any dirt. 

Q. Do you know the names of the inspectors or any of the inspectors?—A. I 
don’t remember the name of but one or two on the Isthmus that inspected the 
cleaning. There was a little fellow from Newport News, but I don’t remember 
his name or the names of any inspectors except one or two. I think the name 
of the inspector who inspected for cleanliness was Oppell or something like that. 

On pages 104, 105, and 106 of volume 32, Mr. Dumville gives his 
view as to the amount of cleaning that was required: 

Q. Now turn to page GO. At the top of page G1 it says: “The method of in¬ 
specting the leaves for inside cleaning was to rub the hand over the surface 
and if it became soiled the leaf was rejected.” I think we have told the com¬ 
mittee that referred to the work at Gatun, and I nelieve Mr. Childers testified 
here that one of his foremen had stated that was the method. The leaves at 
Gatun were most thoroughly cleaned, were they not?—A. They were cleaned as 
good as we could get them. 

Q. And if the man’s hand became soiled when it was rubbed over the surface 
the work was rejected?—A. If a man rubbed his hand over the surface it cer¬ 
tainly would get soiled. 

Q. It could not be that clean as not to soil his hand?—A. No, sir. The only 
way to bring steel to that state would be to have it polished. 

Q. I am told that was nearly done.—A. No, sir; they were not polished. 

Q. Do you not think you could clean a piece of iron with wire brushes and 
small brushes, and even then when you rubbed you hand over it it would be 
soiled?—A. You could not clean a piece of rough steel so as not to soil the 
hand ; no. It would soil it to a certain extent. 

Q. l r ou remember the specifications state that the bottom girders shall be 
painted with red lead?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you remember the condition of those girders?—A. You mean inside of 
the gate where the concrete bottom was? That was not coated with red lead. 

Q. Paragraph 105 of the specifications says that the interior will be painted 
with a solution of bitumastic enamel, and that an exception shall be made in 
the case of the girders at the bottom of the gate, which shall receive a thin 
coat of red lead, which shall later be replaced by a cement covering, which 
shall be applied as specified therein.—A. What I referred to was the interior 
side of the bottom girder; the top side was not painted in the field. 

Q. I mean at the shop; it came to the Isthmus painted.—A. I can not say. 
I would not swear whether it was painted with red lead or with bitumastic. 

Q. Do you know the condition of that girder with respect to rust and also to 
the amount of paint on it in connection with the other girders painted with 
bitumastic?—A. The bottom girders required considerable cleaning, due to sev¬ 
eral reasons. The entire rubbish in the interior of the gate collected in the 
bottom girders. That had to be removed, of course. In some instances there 
was rust, but in all instances there were big quantities of dirt, because the 
ontire rubbish came down and collected on the bottom girder. The bottom 
girder was cleaned and the cement covering was applied to the bare steel. 

Q. Do you think the bottom girders were rusty?—A. In some instances. 

q Do you think it was?—A. Yes. 

6 Were any of the other girders rusty?—A. Yes, sir. The interior of all 
the leaves were rusty. That is, the principal girders. The last leaves shipped 
from the States—the last material shipped from the States, I should say— 
had considerable less rust than the first ones. 

Q Do you remember the paint on the outside of the leaves when they came 
from the States?—A. They were in good condition and stayed in good condition 
until they were finally painted. That was red lead. 


340 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


Q. How about the outside of the gates?—A. The outside of the gates required 
very little cleaning before they were finally coated with red lead. That is, 
the first coat. We applied two coats of red lead, hut there was little to do to 
prepare the surfaces; the shop coat of red lead was very good. 

Q. And it seems that the black solution which proceeded the enamel was 
just rotting away?—A. In some instances the shop coat of paint was entirely 
gone. 

Q. Did you ever notice when shipments arrived from the States that the shop 
coat was gone at that time, and the iron was commencing to rust where painted 
with that black solution?—A. I would not go just that far; no, sir. I can 
state that the material stored in the yard was rusty, and some of it badly, 
prior to its being installed, in the leaves. I would not like to say how long it 
had been since that material had been received on the Isthmus. 

Q. You will remember that on November 13 there was a dispute about 
inspecting a leaf on the lower level at Gatun, I do not remember the number 
of it, but that at Mr. Childers’s request I took the matter up with the chairman 
and he appointed Col. Dickson to inspect the leaf?—A. About cleaning? 

Q. Yes; cleaning.—A. Yes; I remember that. 

Q. Do you know whether Col. Dickson made a report?—A. l r es. 

Q. Do you know about the date of that report?—A. The investigation was 
held about the 1st of November, or somewhere around the 10th or 15th of the 
month, if I remember rightly, and I savr Col. Dickson’s report several days 
after that. I can’t say just what date it was. 

Q. Do you remember anything stated in the report as to the method in 
which that cleaning was carried on, as to whether it was thoroughly done? The 
Contractor was never furnished with a copy of it to my knowledge.—A. I do 
not know that 1 can quote the report, but I can say what was the nature of it. 
Mr. Childers claimed that we were absolutely too rigid and unreasonable in 
our demands for cleaning. 

Q. Do you remember anything about the method of inspection?—A. That 
was what I was going to say. The reason why the argument arose was that 
the inspectors turned down a portion of the leaf on account of its not being 
properly cleaned, and Mr. Childers’s men referred the matter to me, and he went 
into the leaf, and I also went into the leaf, but I did not see him in there, as he 
came out of the leaf in a different direction. Mr. Childers told me later, and also 
Mr. Guynn (we were together at the time), that he would not do any further 
cleaning on the leaf, and that he would take the matter up with Col. Goetlials, 
and the matter stood like that for some while. I went into the leaf, and told 
Mr. Childers that, with the exceptions which I called his attention to, the leaf 
was all right, but that it would be necessary for him to do that other cleaning, 
and he refused to do it, and the next we heard about it was that Col. Dickson 
would be done to investigate it, and Col. Dickson went into the leaf with Mr. 
Childers, myself, and Inspector Quinn. Col. Dickson examined the spots I 
called his attention to, and then he went out of the leaf and went into the 
machine-shop office, and Col. Dickson held an investigation there, and examined 
a few people in connection with the cleaning. Col. Dickson’s report was to the 
effect that the exceptions that I had taken were properly taken, and that the 
different places I pointed out should have received further cleaning, and that 
all the grease and dirt and rust should come off before the painting was done. 
He also stated in his report that the cleaning was being very well done. I 
think he said that Mr. Childers was being made to go to the limit in cleaning, 
and that with the exceptions of the spots I pointed out the leaf was remarkably 
cleaned. Mr. Childers also claimed that the inspectors were not cooperating 
with him in trying to get the work done; that our men looked at a little of it, 
and if they found spots told them to have it cleaned for several days, and that 
they would come around and look at it again. 

Mr. Howe testified as follows about the cleaning (see p. 75, vol 32) : 

Q. What was the amount of cleaning and the way it was performed on the 

interior of the lock gates before applying the final coating of bitumastic?_ 

A. The leaves had to be, every girder had to be thoroughly cleaned, started at 
the top and went right straight down to the bottom. 

Q. What methods were required? What was the Contractor required to use?_ 

A. Wire brushes. They used wire brushes and brooms. 

Q. Was any complaint made in regard to the amount of cleaning required?_ 

A. No; once I believe I had to go down myself in one of those bottom girders, 
but the matter was adjusted easily enough. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


341 


Q. Was the cleaning due primarily to the operation of the Contractor? 
Some cleaning would have had to be done anyway. Or was it necessary to re¬ 
move the first coat of the bitumastic solution?—A. No; it wasn’t necessary to 
do that. You see the stuff at Miraflorcs had come down there; the last that 
was shipped from the States had received a coat of this solution. It wasn’t in 
nearly as bad shape as at Pedro Miguel. 

Q. What was the cleaning primarily necessary for?—A. To clean out the 
bolts and rivets and old rivet kegs and such stuff as that. 

Q. That would have had to be done anyway and would have no reference 
to the bitumastic solution that was on the steelwork. There was no special 
increased cost, in your opinion, due to any imperfections in the painting?—A. 
In the previous painting? 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. No, sir; I don’t think there was. 

Q. At either Pedro Miguel or Miraflores?—A. At Pedro Miguel I wouldn’t 
state. 

Mr. Smith. When did they stop using that bitumastic solution, Mr. Sterrett? 

Mr. Sterrett. They never stopped at all. There was a letter written by Mr. 
Hammer ordering them to stop, but they continued again. They abandoned 
the field coat and used bitumastic enamel all the way through. Mr. Smith, 
when the trouble arose whether the paint was durable or not, then, I believe, 
Mr. Hammer wrote a letter requesting them to stop. The matter got to the 
Isthmus, and it was decided to put that coat of enamel all over the inside, and 
they went ahead and put on the solution just the same as before. 

Mr. Smith. What was the method of inspecting and cleaning inside of the 
leaf; whether it was cleaned sufficiently or not? 

Mr. Howe. It was gone over to see if it was clean. 

Mr. Smith. Didn’t rub your hand over it to see if it was clean? 

Mr. Howe. No, sir. 

Mr. Sterrett. That was intended to apply only to Gatun. 

Q. (Mr. Rousseau to Mr. Howe.) Was the Contractor’s work at either Pedro 
Miguel or Miraflores delayed or held up appreciably, in your opinion, due to 
an insufficient number of inspectors or the way they carried on their work at 
any time?—A. No, sir. 


On pages 83 and 84, volume 32, Mr. Howe also stated: 


Mr. Rousseau. You were questioned. Mr. Howe, about extra cleaning on 
these Miraflores leaves. Refer to page 81 (g). In other words, for Miraflores 
and Pedro Miguel we do not claim excess cleaning due to inspection, but we 
do claim, on account of rust and the paint disappearing, we had to do more 
cleaning than neeesssary. 

Mr. Rousseau. But Mr. Howe made the explicit statement that none of the 
cleaning was due to deterioration of paint. 

Q. Can you give any further details in regard to that? Read that statement 
and make any comment on it.—A. As I stated before, the work shipped for 
Miraflores had received a coat of this bitumastic enamel before it came down; 
not the enamel, but the bitumastic solution. 

Q. All of it had?—A. No; some of it was down at Miraflores. Wasn’t there 
two or three girders that hadn’t been done in the States and had to be done 
down here? To Guynn. 

Mr. Guynn. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Howe I know in several cases we touched up some gates. 

Mr! Rousseau. How many gates did you go in yourself to inspect the cleaning 
either before or after to inspect the condition of the paint? 


A. Before final acceptance? 

Q. No; before the cleaning, and to inspect the cleaning after it had been 
done.—A. I have been in most every gate. 

O And you made a positive statement that the cleaning was not due to 
deterioration of the bitumastic solution—A. I won’t make as big a statement 
as that, but I will say that the condition was nothing like what it was at 
Pedro Miguel. There may have been rusted spots and things like that that 

were cleaned off with the wire brushes. 

q You do not consider it increased the cost of the cleaning appreciably.—A. 

No sir* it had to he cleaned anyhow. 

q Read pages 60 and 61, Mr. Ilowe, starting at the top of page 60.—A. That 
refers particularly to Gatun. 

O At the top of page 61. It cost $627 per leaf to clean at Miraflores and 
$621 per leaf to clean at Pedro Miguel. Have you any comment to make on 
the matter of cleaning?—A. No, sir. 


342 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO 


Mr. Smith. Do you remember about bow many, how large the spaces were 
that would be rusted; that bad to be cleaned by wire brushes? 

A. Most of it was on the plate part of the girder and the rivets, shop rivets—• 
that is, the shop rivets. On most every girder there were a few rust spots. 

Q. It was not a case of cleaning rust oft the entire girder by any means?—A. 
Oh, no, sir. 

The manner in which the cleaning was done at Gatun, and the 
way in which the amount of cleaning was affected by the inefficiency 
of the bitumastic solution, is shown in the testimony of Mr. Dum- 
ville taken at the Isthmus, volume 32, pages 11G, 117, and 118, which, 
for easy reference, are quoted below; 

Mr. Rousseau. In regard to the matter of cleaning the interior of the leaves. 
What was the general method followed at Gatun by the Contractor; what 
method of cleaning? 

Mr. Dumville. The Contractor’s men cleaned the leaves and submitted them 
for our inspection. 

Q. What did they use for cleaning; what tools, implements, or material?—A. 
Wire brushes, scaling hammers, steel scrapers, and dust brushes. 

Q. Did they use any air at all?—A. They used air, but only to a small extent. 
They removed some of the heaviest scale with air. Just how far they did this 
I would not say; I could not give you an exact idea. 

Q. Have you any idea what percentage of the cleaning was due to the re¬ 
moval of the bitumastic solution at Gatun and how much was due to incidental 
cleaning up of the gates?—A. The debris collected on the interior of the gates, 
and that had to be removed, and it was impossible for it not to collect. That 
was a result of the working conditions. The material should not have rusted 
and would never have rusted had it been properly coated. That is a matter of 
fact. If it had been properly protected, it could not have rusted. 

Q. After the surface was cleaned, how much of the bitumastic solution was 
visible?—A. On the top sides of the girders there was approximately none. On 
the sides of the sheathing plates in some instances it was very good. In some 
instances it was absolutely gone; that is, on many of the first leaves. 

Q. On page 61 is a comparative statement of the expenses said to have been 
incurred by the Contractor for cleaning per leaf at Miraflores and Pedro Miguel, 
and at Gatun it is three times as much per leaf as at Miraflores or Pedro 
Miguel. To what do you attribute that large difference?—A. I would not like 
to say, Mr. Rousseau. 

Q. Why not?—A. Well, I know conditions exactly at Gatun and I do not know 
them at the other two places. I know exactly what we were required to get 
at Gatun and exactly what we got. The leaves were very dirty and rusty in 
a number of instances, and the rust was removed and cleaned. There was some 
trouble about cleaning one of the leaves, before the McClintic-Marshall people 
took over the cleaning personally themselves. The other leaves, however, were 
cleaned and cleaned well. I do not believe that any rust was covered up by 
the paint. 

Q. I will state further that at Miraflores the statement has been made that 
the bitumastic solution was all in good condition, so that the only difference, 
then, in conditions would be the rust at Gatun?—A. Climatic conditions at 
Gatun might also have been a cause. It is claimed on the Isthmus, I believe, 
that material is more prone to deteriorate on the Atlantic side than on the 
Pacific side, because of the excessive dampness there, which you do not have on 
the Pacific side. I would not care to make that as a statement. 

Q. The fact of the matter is, that the Contractor claims that one of the 
causes for the increased cost is due to the inspection being so severe at Gatun, 
and, of course, there may be other ways of accounting for it.—A. There is one 
thing about it. If the material at Miraflores was in better condition of course 
the cost would be decreased. If the material at Gatun deteriorated more than 
the material at Miraflores during the erection, that would be another reason. * I 
would not care to say that that was the condition. It is possible that the inspec¬ 
tion at Gatun was more rigid than at either of the other places, and, if so, of 
course it cost more. But I did not exceed my orders and we did get a good 
clean job. If the cleaning was not done that well at the other places which 
I do not know, that would be a cause. I could not say whether it was or not 
Q. While at Gatun do you recall any facts coming to vour attention relative 
to the method of carrying on the work, or methods of'erection or any other 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO 


343 


factors that might also have gone in and accounted in a general way for the. 
cost of the work of the contractors there?—A. From what source do you mean? 

Q. From any source. In other words, was the Contractor’s work above criti¬ 
cism, serious or appreciable criticism, or as to the efficiency with which his 
men performed tlieir work?—A. They would have made better progress had 
they proceeded with the job on a large scale at the beginning; if they had 
rushed in their equipment as Mr. Childers did when he came down, they would 
have made better progress. I do not know whether that is just what you want 
to get at or not. 

Mr. Smith. In your statement in regard to the cleaning of that one leaf that 
was objected to by Mr. Childers and that Col. Dickson made a report on. I 
believe you left the impression that Col. Dickson’s report was that the attitude 
of the inspectors was unfriendly to the Contractor; was that your intention? 

Mr. Dumville. The attitude of one inspector was. 

Q. You limit it to that one inspector?—A. The objection was made by Mr. 
Childers against one inspector, and Col. Dickson in his report practically 
upheld Mr. Childers in his objection to that one inspector. 

Q. What was the attitude of the inspectors as a general proposition?—A. I 
endeavored to have the feeling as good as I could and as friendly as possible. 
That was my attitude at all times. Of course inspectors on any job like this 
are subjected to a good deal of criticisms by the contractor, and we had to use 
considerable diplomacy to keep things running. As a whole, I do not think 
there was any ill feeling; that is, to any extent. There is one instance that I 
referred to and which was the subject of investigation. I have heard Mr. 
Childers express himself in regard to his feelings toward Mr. Quinn and the 
way he thought Inspector Quinn felt toward the Contractor. 

Mr. Robert Mellon, one of the inspectors of the Panama Canal at 
Gatun, stated (see p. 45, vol. 35) : 


A. The most corrosion and trouble was on the bottom of the panel. The 
upper part of the panel never had much trouble. It was at the bottom of the 
panel where all these metals had laid and the water run in starting much 
corrosion, and then the floor of the panel, as you might say, that is where most 
of the cleaning was—all the trouble. 

Mr. George Roberts, one of the inspectors of the Panama Canal at 
Gatun, testified as follows (see p. 53, vol. 35) : 

Q. What were your requirements as to cleaning?—A. Well, the requirements 
were pretty severe because iron or steel must be perfectly cleaned if you want 
the paint to take any hold. Those leaves and rivets in Gatun were there quite 
a while before same were put up, and the rivet heads got to rusting and thin 
scale all had to come off. Generally, we scaled with a scale hammer and then 
had a wire brush to pick up anything that didn’t get off with the scale hammer. 

He further testified that (see pp. 53 and 54, vol. 35) : 


Q. You say some of that material at Gatun had been there a long time before 
they erected it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that it rusted?—A. Yes, sir; the rust had got hold. 

Q. Did you ever have any complaint that you were requiring more cleaning 
than necessary?—A. I have heard several. We could not see where it was to 
the advantage of the Commission to loosen up on the cleaning. 

Q. What was your method of determining whether a leaf had been suffi¬ 
ciently cleaned or not?—A. We used to go around with a candle to examine it. 

Q. Did you use your hand to rub on the inside to determine whether there 
was dirt there?—A. You can generally see that. Sometimes on the floor of a 
leaf it would look like scale. 

Q. It is stated here in the claim that the method of inspecting leaves that 
you would go down into the leaf and rub your hand on the inner surface of the 
ieaf, and if you soiled your hand you would send the cleaner back in to clean 
the leaf. It that right? 

A. Not in my case. I never carried it that far, because it was not necessary, 
and I think the painters carry a brush to knock off the dust, and I used to 


look at it anyhow. „ . 

O How many did you inspect before cleaning?—A. I believe nearly all at 

Gatun, with the exception of the first four—the upper guard gates and those 


344 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


were cleaned after tlie 1st of September in 1912. I could not tell you just 
what leaves they were. 

Q. It was also stated in the claim that a large part of the cleaning in the 
first place was caused by the bitumastic paint called for in the specifications 
being inadequate to meet the climatic conditions at the Isthmus. What do 
you know about that? They put a coat of bitumastic solution on the leaves in 
the States, and do you know whether or not that came off and scaled off to 
such an extent as to require an unusual amount of cleaning to get them in 
shape to apply the solution?—A. It must have. As I say, before some of those 
leaves were erected they were laying in the yard, and the rust had already 
started on them. And I called Mr. Dumville’s attention to it and said it would 
be a good idea to clean them. 

Q. Do you know whether that was done?—A. Yes, they did. 

On page 182, volume 8, Mr. Goldmark testified as to the instruc¬ 
tions lie gave with respect to cleaning the interior area of the leaves 
before the bitumastic enamel was applied, as follows: 

A. Why, these leaves were sand blasted before they were sent to the 
Isthmus—before they were painted in the shop. For various reasons they 
got dirty and rusted and covered with debris; and my instructions were to 
clear them so that practically no foreign substances should remain on them. 
The discoloration from rust, yes, but no scale; no dirt; no paint except per¬ 
fect black bitumastic adhere, of which there was very little; and to get a 
dry, clean surface; to remove all foreign material except paint in good condi¬ 
tion. 

The evidence established the fact that a large amount of necessary 
and seme unnecessary cleaning was done. It also establishes the fact 
that a large part of this cleaning at Gatun was caused by the in¬ 
efficiency of the bitumastic solution in protecting the interior surfaces 
of the gates from the time the erection of steel began until the gate 
was completed. It also establishes the fact that a long time elapsed 
between the beginning of erection of several of the gates at Gatun 
and their completion, and that they became very dirty and required 
much cleaning. 

Paragraph 108 of the specifications provides that— 

If at any time before erection any part of tlie coated surfaces becomes so 
injured by tlie weather or otherwise as to require recoating this shall be 
promptly done free of charge to the satisfaction of the chief engineer or his 
authorized representatives. 

In no case shall the paint be applied out of doors in rainy, misty, or freezing 
weather, and all surfaces on which paint is applied must be at the time dry 
and clean. 

This provision in the specifications is ample authority for requir¬ 
ing the leaves to be thoroughly cleaned before bitumastic enamel 
is applied. It is also apparent from the very nature of the bitumastic 
enamel that it would be necessary that the surfaces should be thor¬ 
oughly cleaned before the painting is applied. 

Article 12 of the contract provides that—- 

All questions relating to final inspection and acceptance of the materials 
and workmanship to be furnished hereunder, or the failure of such materials 
and workmanship to comply with the specifications, shall be determined by 
the chief engineer of the Commission, or by any officer or deputy to whom the 
chief engineer may assign that duty, and such decision, when expressed in 
writing, shall be final. 

This provision of the contract makes the Isthmian Canal Commis¬ 
sion’s inspectors the judge as to what cleaning is necessary and 
makes their decision final. In questions of differences between the 
judgment of the Isthmian Canal Commission’s inspectors and the 
judgment of the Contractor’s foremen and superintendents, the 



McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


345 


Isthmian Canal Commission’s inspectors’ actions should be followed 
unless a clear mistake on their part is established. The evidence does 
not indicate that the inspectors of the Isthmian Canal Commission 
were overexacting, except in some few instances. 

What seemed to be unreasonably close inspection at the time was 
probably due very largely to the inadequate shop painting or defects 
in the bitumastic solution, and also to the fact that the Contractor 
was a long time in erecting the gates and that they became very dirty. 

That part of the Contractor’s claim which was based upon the prop¬ 
osition that “ On account of the inadequate shop painting * * * 

the Contractor was required to do unnecessary interior cleaning” is 
established. 

It is also established that in some instances the inspectors made 
unreasonable requirements, but this does not appear to apply to any 
appreciable extent to the inspection at Miraflores. 

The amount of the Contractor’s claim for excessive cleaning, in 
the way he arrived at it, is about $78,000, and the amount he con¬ 
cedes as the normal for cleaning is about $31,000. 

Mr. Goldmark, in his report, page 115, volume 1, quoted on page 
411 of this report, states: 

The use of the bitumastic solution as a shop paint was prescribed in the 
specifications, the Contractor having no part in its selection, and no option as 
to whether he would use it or not. A considerable part of the cleaning was 
made necessary by the poor quality of this paint. Just how much it is impos¬ 
sible to say, but I am inclined to think that if red lead had been used the clean¬ 
ing at Pedro Miguel and Miratlores would have been reduced by about one-lialf, 
and at Gatun by about two-thirds. 

If this should be taken as the correct estimate as to the excess 
cleaning due to the use of bitumastic solution, out of a total of 
$109,702.26. the excess for which the Contractor makes claim, includ¬ 
ing: rush work and unnecessarily severe inspection, would be about 
$67,000. 

The total price of cleaning was $3.03 per ton at Gatun; at Pedro 
Miguel it was 99.8 cents per ton and at Miraflores it was 98.9 cents 
per ton, including the rush work. If Goldmark’s estimate should be 
taken as representing about actual conditions, the cleaning at Gatun 
should have cost $1.01 per ton, at Pedro Miguel it should have cost 
49.9 cents per ton. and at Miraflores 49.5 cents per ton, including rush 
work. On the basis of the Contractor’s claim the price per ton for 
cleaning would be 49.9 cents per ton at Miraflores, including rush 
work, and at Pedro Miguel and Gatun 54.9 cents per ton. 

Mr. Goldmark did not undertake to do more than make an esti¬ 
mate. His statement does not take into consideration the increase in 
cost due to the time that the Contractor took to erect the leaves after 
beginning the erection. This does not apply so fully at Miraflores 
aslit Gatun, but the claim should be so stated that this element in 
the claim will be considered in the total allowance. This element is 
partly covered and included in the claim for rush work, but in order 
to charge the Contractor with what would seem to be a reasonable 
amount for him to assume for delay in erecting the work at Gatun 
the amount to be deducted from the actual expense at Miraflores in 
establishing a normal should be reduced. It is believed that it would 
be fair, just, and equitable to fix the deduction for excess cleaning 
to be made from the actual expenses at Miraflores at $6,000, ex¬ 
clusive of rush work. 


346 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO, 


METHOD OF ERECTION. 

On page 49 of the claim, third paragraph “ fourth,” the Contractor 
makes this claim in reference to the inspectors: 

That they exceeded their authority by prescribing the method under which 
the work should be erected, and by insisting upon having this method carried 
out. 

On page 50 of the claim, under u (d)” it is stated: 

The inspectors at Gatlin and Pedro Miguel insisted on directing the order 
and methods of the successive steps of erection, thus delaying the progress and 
increasing the cost. At Miraflores the erection was carried on according to the 
Contractor’s own methods. 

On pages 58, 59, and 00 of the claim the Contractor undertakes to 
state the particular way in which, and the extent to which, the cost 
of erection was affected. The evidence on which the contractor relies 
in support of this contention is referred to and commented on in his 
brief, pages 129 to 134, inclusive. 

The main differences in the methods of erection at Miraflores and 
at the other two lock sites was that at Gatun and Pedro Miguel the 
work was plumbed up and adjusted to the correct alignment provided 
for in paragraph 121 of the specifications at successive steps in the 
erection of the skeleton of each leaf, while at Miraflores the skeleton 
of each leaf was erected complete and then plumbed up and adjusted 
to the correct alignment. 

Paragraph 121 of the specifications provides that— 

121. In both shop and field erection the utmost care must be taken to get the 
skeleton into correct alignment before any sheathing is bolted to it or rivets 
driven. The vertical distances between adjacent horizontal girders must not 
vary more than one-sixteentli inch from the dimensions shown on the plans. The 
vertical ends of the leaves must be kept straight from the top to the bottom, 
so that the bearing plates on the quoin and miter posts may be truly in line 
and make proper contact. After the structural work is completely assembled 
and riveted up, the end plates shall be. planed to a true surface. In the field 
erection the separate parts shall be tightly bolted together, using bolts in 
practically all of the holes, and the rivet and bolt holes shall then be reamed 
out to their full size. In attaching the castings, the holes in the structural 
work must be drilled from the solid to fit finished holes in castings. All neces¬ 
sary precautions must be taken in driving rivets to avoid the distortion of the 
gate as a whole and of any of its component parts. 

Rivets must be tight under the hammer and where necessary must be calked 
to make them water-tight, but may not be recupped. Calking of plates and 
angles must be done with great care, with approved pneumatic or other satis¬ 
factory tools in such a manner as not to injure the material in anyway. (See 
also par. 123 of the specifications, quoted on p. 270 of this report.) 

In reporting upon this part of the claim, Col. Hodges stated (see 
p. 9, vol. 33-A) : 

The claim (d) that the inspectors exceeded their authority by prescribing 
the method under which the work should be erected is new to me. I find noth¬ 
ing to sustain it in our records. Paragraph 11S of the specifications provides 
that the Chief Engineer shall approve the erection plans. It is well known 
that the erection methods first pursued by the contractor did not accomplish 
good results, but soon the actual placing of the skeleton showed marked im¬ 
provement. Any action of our inspectors which was justly considered by the 
contractor as exceeding their authority in prescribing the method of erection 
would cei’tainlj have been corrected by you or by me at once had it been 
brought to our attention at the time. It is rather late to take it up now. 



McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


347 


Mr. Guynn stated in his report, pages 17 and 18, volume 33-A, in 
relation to paragraph (d), page 50 of the Contractor’s claim, that: 

Referring to paragraph (d), page 50, “fourth,” relative to inspectors in¬ 
sisting on directing the order and methods of successive steps of erection at 
Gatun and Pedro Miguel, and not at Miraflores, have to advise that at Gatun 
and Pedro Miguel that the inspectors did not insist on the way the erection 
should be accomplished other than demanding that the leaves at the different 
adjustment panels be checked. In reference to the Contractor’s methods being 
used at Miraflores, wish to state that Mr. J. O. Childers and I talked the mat¬ 
ter over a number of times, Mr. Childers stating that he believed he could 
erect the gates as a whole and accomplish the work much quicker than the old 
method which had been followed. I informed him at that time I believed it 
could be done, provided care was exercised during the erection, and I also be¬ 
lieved satisfactory results could be obtained. I informed him at that time 
I would assist him every way possible as I was desirous of seeing the work 
completed at Miraflores in much less time than the gates at Gatun and Pedro 
Miguel required. (See my comments on the 3d paragraph, p. 49, “fourth” of 
Contractor’s claims; see p. 11 of this letter.) 

In reference to the method of erection followed by the Contractor, 
Mr. Goldmark in a letter dated July 2, 1912, General Exhibit No. 7, 
introduced in connection with the testimony of Mr. Pendergrass, 
volume 15, stated: 

On Saturday, June 29, leaves 37 and 38 were brought together against the 
sill. Theses leaves have been erected slightly out of plumb at the miter ends. 
The miter posts lean downstream at the top slightly. Both leaves, fortunately, 
lean the same amount, and the entire bearing is wonderfully true and correct 
from top to bottom. 

There is the utmost need for haste in closing the gates, as the lake level is 
now over 30 feet, while, as you know, the level of the emergency dam just 
above the gates is 37.3. 

The work so far as it has gone is entirely satisfactory. As to the method of 
erection, it is perfectly correct in principle, but the management has been in 
many ways execrable, so that, so far as riveting, reaming, and finishing are 
concerned, we are, as you are aware, away behind our schedule. 

This same letter contains the statement that— 

Mr. Guynn stated that he had never seen more perfect preliminary tests than 
these. 

This shows that whatever may have been the method adopted by 
the Contractor and whether it was adopted at the suggestion of the 
Isthmian Canal Commission’s inspectors or not, the results obtained 
were entirely satisfactory and accomplished the purpose contem¬ 
plated by the contract in a highly satisfactory manner. 

In his report, volume 1, pages 101 to 107, inclusive, Mr. Goldmark 
gives his recollections as to the character of the inspection so far as 
ft applies to this particular claim of the Contractor: 

Claim 4 (c). 


It is claimed on page 49, “That they (the inspectors) exceeded their author¬ 
ity by prescribing the method under which the work should be erected, and by 
insisting upon having this method carried out.” 

This charge is referred to more in detail on pages 58 and 59, in which some 
pvtracts from reports of Mr. J. O. Childers, general superintendent for the Con- 
rnptor are given These reports are, in my opinion, incorrect and misleading. 
Thev do not "take into account the conditions under which this work was done 
and give an entirely distorted view of the situation and the demands made of 
the Contractors. It would appear from these that during the whole process 
of the work the Contractors were impeded from doing economical and good work 
by the action of the inspectors. As a matter of fact, this .s not true. 


348 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


The Contractors originated the method of erection which was approved by 
the chairman of the Commission, and this was followed throughout in all its 
essentials. The only point in which the original method was changed was the 
following: As originally planned and described by Mr. Jewel in his letter to 
Mr. Hammer on the method of erection, dated November S, 1910, Isthmian file 
No. 5-A, so-called triangular erection frames, or false-work frames, were in¬ 
tended to be fastened to the gates as they were erected, and keep the gates from 
falling over, from the very beginning of the work. These frames, when fastened 
to the gates, were strong enough to carry the whole weight of the gates, and 
served to roll the gate into position over the pintle. In the erection of the 
first leaves at Gatun, it was found that if these frames were attached to the 
gate before the sheathing was put on, it was very hard to insert the sheathing 
between the frames and the gate. The method caused great delay, and in the 
next set of leaves, or the third set of leaves, these frames were not attached to 
the gates until they were almost fully riveted up and ready to be shoved over 
the pintle. The skeletons of the gates were kept from overturning by steel guy 
ropes attached at the top, and in most cases at one intermediate point. This 
method proved safe and efficient—in fact the change was almost absolutely 
necessary. No question has ever been raised about this. I have understood 
that this method was originally suggested to Mr. Jewel by Chief Inspector 
Guynn. 

When the erection began at Gatun, both the Contractors and our inspectors 
were inexperienced in the special points connected with the erection of these 
gates. I do not believe anyone in the Contractor's force had been present at 
Rankin while the sample leaf was erected there. Mr. Guynn had been present 
at Rankin when this leaf was erected, and was familiar with the difficulties en¬ 
countered, and the steps taken to get over them in the erection of the leaves. 
He was therefore entirely willing to assist the Contractor by giving him the 
benefit of his experience. As I recall it, the Contractor's foreman, Mr. Hutzley, 
objected to any assistance of this kind, and it was not urged. 

I did, however, urge upon the Contractor, and also upon Mr. Guynn, the 
importance that these and all other leaves should be erected plumb and 
* straight, as required by the specifications. Difficulties were encountered from 
inexperience in knowing just how to place the girders and diaphragms so 
as to get the ends of the girders and diaphragms to match exactly and to 
build up the gates to a true line. There were also, of course, a number of 
other points that gave difficulty in the beginning. However, the inspectors 
so far failed to insist on any special precautions and methods of erection 
on these first eight leaves as to fail in their duty rather than to exceed their 
authority. I continuously urged Mr. Jewel to make sure that these gates 
should be completed accurately, and he assured me that all precautions were 
being taken to that end. However, I do not believe that they were checked 
by plumbing for a considerable time by the Contractors, and various obstacles 
were put in the way of the inspectors making this check by a plumb line— 
such as scaffolding and other obstructions. The result was that when these 
gates were completed, that is, nearly riveted up, and I insisted on making 
this check, that is, in doing just what the Contractor now says we should 
have done—let him finish his gates and then see whether they were right— 
it was found that they were quite decidedly out of plumb. Referring to Mr. 
Guynn’s report to me of January 2, 1912, it may be seen that the condition 
of these leaves were as follows: 

“Leaf No. 37. Upper guard gate, Gatun, quoin end vertical, miter end 
leaning downstream l/g inches. 

“ Leaf No. 38. Upper guard gate, Gatun, quoin end vertical, miter end 
leaning downstream If inches. 

“Leaf No. 39. Upper guard gate, Gatun, quoin end vertical, miter end 
leaning downstream If inches. 

“Leaf No. 40. Upper guard gate, Gatun, quoin end vertical, miter end 
leaning downstream seven-eighths of an inch.” 

It is to be noted that the quoin end had been pulled to a vertical position 
by guys, so as to be able to judge what the condition of the other end was 
Some other measurements made seemed to indicate even greater divergence 
from the vertical line at the miter end. I do not think that these fi-ures 
have ever been denied by the Contractor. The leaves at that time were riveted 
on the downstream but not on the upstream side, but it proved impossible 
to improve them. They remain now as they were then, somewhat out of plumb 
It should be noted that all ends leaned the same way. This being the case 


McC?,INTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


349 


tlie slight difference from a vertical line is not important, though it should 
he noted that the different leaves in the same pair do not lean the same 
amount. However, by good fortune the two leaves in a pair leaned the same 
way—both downstream. If they had happened to have leaned one upstream 
and the other downstream, which might just as well have occurred, the mitering 
surfaces in these leaves would have been permanently very bad. In other 
words, the leaves would have intersected somewhere and diverged further 
and further from the point of intersection. The bearing would probably not 
have been tight, and the work entirely unsatisfactory. 

As a result of these errors I gave instructions that from then on a careful 
check should be made continuously by the inspectors, in order to insure that 
when we got through with a leaf it should be plumb. Mr. Jewel agreed to 
this, and I believe the understanding was that twice a week a plumb bob 
should be placed at the ends for checking. This, however, was not done, and 
there was considerable trouble in getting the plumbing done and, in my opinion, 
many times considerable risk of getting the gates out of plumb. I believe, 
however, that by watching them most carefully the inspectors succeeded in 
getting them -all plumb. I notice in Dumville’s report, February 1, 1912, the 
following: 

“The alignment of the ends of leaves 33-36 at the time the top girders 
were placed in position showed them to be plumb. Contractors promised to 
replace plumb bobs used in erection when the last top girder was placed in 
position on January 20. Until this is done I can not take accurate check.” 

1 would also note that on tlie next set of leaves to the upper guard gates, 

I believe girder leaf No. 33 at Gatun, the erection of the first 5 or 6 girders 
was faulty. The ends of the girders were not in line. The A frames projected 
in some cases. There girders had been rushed up in a great hurry, regardless 
of all protests, as Mr. Marshall was then expected on the Isthmus. It was 
claimed at that time, in the presence of Mr. Marshall and Mr. Jewel, that 
these girders were all right. The girders did, however, prove to be faultily set 
and were taken down as far as the bottom girder and rebuilt by the Contractors. 

The work continued at Gatun for a long time, and the Contractor’s superin¬ 
tendents and foremen were changed several times, and the men in charge of 
the gangs quite frequently. The only men who were there continuously and 
were fully posted with all the difficulties in getting these good results were, as 
a matter of fact, the inspectors. They had from me instructions not to act as 
foremen, not to direct the methods by which results were to be attained, but 
to check the results after the work was done. It is manifestly impossible to 
accomplish this exactly so as to wait until the work is entirely done—until 
serious errors have been introduced into the work which can not afterwards be 
corrected. The errors of the erection of the first girders as given above show 
this. I do not understand that there was any desire on the part of the Con¬ 
tractor to change the method at Gatun until very much later. In fact, I do not 
now recall that Mr. Childers’s desire to change it at Gatun was mentioned to 
me at that time, nor do I know whether Mr. Dumville at that time objected to 
a change. At the time the Contractors had reached this stage of erection they 
had naturally learned a great deal about it. There is no doubt that the 
Miraflores work was handled by them very much better than the other work, 
it would have been strange if it had not. If at that time they had arrived at 
a better method for erecting the gates, placing them properly and plumbing 
them into line at the ends, there was absolutely no objection by our inspectors 
to a change in method. 

There was one chief inspector, and I do not believe that he used different 
methods in one place than in another as to directing the method in which the 
work should be done. As to Mr. Dumville personally, I always found him 
extremely reasonable, so that I would not have supposed it probable that he 
would make an unreasonable demand, nor do I think the chief inspector would 
have objected to the use of a method at Gatun which gave good results at 
Miraflores I would refer also to a letter which I wrote to Mr. Guynn Novem¬ 
ber 9 1912, file 84-C-81, part 10, in which I instructed him to he careful not to 
have his inspectors handle the work; that is, act as foremen. 

In connection with this whole matter, I want to put myself on record as 
emnhatically as I can that the inspectors did not hamper this lock-gate work, 
but from the beginning to the end af the same were of the very greatest assist¬ 
ance to the Contractors in getting the work together in a proper manner and 
Avoiding delays. There were many points in which the experience of the 
injectors in water-tight work was of the greatest value, while practically none 
of the Contractor’s men had such experience, and as far as I could judge from 


350 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


observation extending over several years, all the information that we had was 
put fully and fairly at the Contractor’s disposal. I know that this was done 
with much tact and good will, and I saw no evidence that any attempt was 
made to coerce them into methods that they objected to or to take charge of 
the work. 

With reference to claim 4 (c) attention should be directed also to the follow¬ 
ing letters: 

[File 17, No. 3.] 

January 31, 1912. Dumville to H. Goldmark, giving errors permitted in the 
ends of completed leaves. This letter is accompanied by a sketch showing the 
exact condition of the end-plate surfaces in leaf No. 3S at that time. 

February 9, 1912. H. Goldmark to Jewel, regarding plumbing of gates. 

February 2G, 1912. H. Goldmark to Jewel, same subject. 

February 28, 1912. Jewel to Courter and Hess, same subject. 

The evidence establishes the fact, as stated by Mr. Goldmark in 
the part of his report quoted on page 435 of this report, that at 
Gatun and Pedro Miguel the leaves were frequently plumbed up, and 
that this action in plumbing up did result in delay and inconven¬ 
ience to the Contractor. (See testimony of Mr. Courter, pp. 15 to 
23, inclusive, vol. 16.) 

Mr. Courter was asked the question as to whether or not the diffi¬ 
culty that they had in erection was due to the fault of the work or to 
the way it was put together and answered this question as follows 
(see p. 23, vol. 16) : 

No; it was not the fault of either one; it was the fault of the inspectors 
saying it was out when there was not anything wrong with it. I should not 
say that there was anything wrong with it; it went together without any extra 
work or any fixing or any new pieces being furnished. We did not have any 
new pieces to take the place of it; it went together all right, and was all right, 
and is all right to-day, so far as I know. I ain’t heard anything about its 
leaking or falling down. 

On pages 82 and 83 Mr. Courter testified about erecting some gates 
without waiting for the inspectors to plumb them up. He said the 
inspectors objected to it because they would not get the gates true 
by running them up so fast, and it did not give them a chance to 
plumb them. Mr. Courter stated that “ they plumbed themselves.” 
He stated that he ran up four leaves in about two days. His testi¬ 
mony is to the effect that it took much longer to run up the first 
leaves at Gatun. 

The other testimony cited by the Contractor in his brief supports 
the proposition that it did take longer to erect the leaves by plumbing 
them up at successive intervals than it did to erect them in the way 
they were erected at Miraflores. 

The Commission’s inspectors, under the instructions of Mr. Gold- 
mark, undoubtedly did insist upon making a thorough inspection 
of the leaves as they were being erected. It is probable from the evi¬ 
dence that the Contractor was subjected to some delay and incon¬ 
venience in erecting the leaves at Gatun and Pedro Miguel due to the 
great frequency with which they were plumbed up under the in¬ 
structions of Mr. Goldmark. The evidence shows, however, that in 
one case it was necessary to take down part of a leaf that had been 
erected. Mr. Marshall or Mr. McClintic and Mr. Goldmark examined 
this leaf together, and the parts of it that had been erected were taken 
down, and from that time on the plumbing up was required to be 
made twice a week. (See p. 110 of the testimony of Mr. Goldmark, 
vol. 8.) This showed inefficient work on the part of the Contractor. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


351 


It is difficult to determine whether or net the inspectors of the 
Isthmian Canal Commission exceeded their authority by suggesting 
to the Contractor methods of erection that they thought would be 
suitable. It is clear, however, that in the particular of plumbing up 
the leaves at stated intervals and correcting them so as to properly 
adjust the alignment, this method was insisted upon under instruc¬ 
tions from Mr. Goldmark at Gatun and Pedro Miguel after the leaf 
was taken down in the early part of 1912, as shown in the testimony 
of Mr. Goldmark, page 110, volume 8, and in his report, volume i, 
quoted on page 435 of this report, second paragraph, under “(p. 
104).” (See also letter of Mr. Goldmark to Mr. Jewel, dated Feb. 
9, 1912, Exhibit 4 of Mr. Courter’s testimony, p. 16, vol. 16.) 
Whether or not this action caused a very great increase in expense in 
the erection of the steel frames is a matter of estimate as to how far 
the Contractor was responsible for it must be estimated. The data 
furnished by the Contractor showing the distribution as to cost in 
the erection of the leaves which would be affected by this action of 
the Commission’s inspectors is not accurate. (See vol. 26, blue print 
giving distribution of labor expenses incurred on the Isthmus.) 

From this distribution, it appears that under the heading of 
“ Steel frame erected ” it cost, per ten, $9.25 at Gatun, $21 at Pedro 
Miguel, and $5.45 at Miraflores. There is undoubtedly in this charge 
at Gatun and Pedro Miguel a part of the charge for bolting up. This 
is shown from the comparative statement of cost per ton which has 
been worked up from the total cost shown in the blue print of the 
contractor. (See vol. 26.) 

The only way in which the excess cost in connection with this part 
of the claim can be taken care of, if there was any, is in fixing the 
final responsibility for the total excess cost between the Panama 
Canal and the Contractor in considering the claim for rush work. 
There is no claim made that there was any interference on the part of 
the inspectors at Miraflores under which the Contractor undertakes 
to establish a normal to be applied at Gatun and Pedro Miguel. 

Further consideration of this claim will be made when considering 
the claim for rush work. For further details see testimony as follows: 

Goldmark, volume 8, pages 108 to 111, 237 to 239. 

Sterrett, volume 9, page 10. 

Courter, volume 16, pages 11 to 24, 82 to 83, also Exhibits 4 and 5. 

Hess, volume 17, pages 24 to 29 and 76. 

Dumville, volume 32, pages 54, 89, and 111. 

Howe, volume 32, page 71. 

Wright, volume 32, pages 125 and 126. 

Guynn, volume 32, pages 156 to 161. 

Roberts, volume 35, pages 48 to 50. 

Huxley, volume 37, Exhibit 3. 

CLAIM FOR RUSH WORK. 

The amount to be deducted from the actual expenses at Miraflores 
in arriving at a normal to be applied at the other lock sites is stated 
on page 75 of the Contractor’s claim as follows: 

(h) Rush work, 17,752 tons, at $S per ton, $11i2,000. 

On page 63 of the Contractor’s claim he states the basis of this 
claim as follows: 

Fifth That taking into account the extension of time to which the Contrac¬ 
tor was entitled, on account of the delays caused by the Commission, he was 


352 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


required to and did complete the work in a much shorter time than that pro¬ 
vided for in the contract. 

That in order to meet these requirements of the Commission the Contractor 
had to resort to a large amount of rush work, which again caused enormously 
increased costs in the held. 

That even if the delays previously described had not occurred, much of this 
expensive rush work would have been necessary on the leaves at Pedro Miguel 
and Miraflores, as the masonry for these leaves was very much behind the dates 
established in the contract, making the time available for the erection of these 
leaves too short for carrying on the held operations in an economical way when 
the kind of work that had to be done in the held is taken into consideration.” 

After stating his specific claim under “ Fourth,” page 49 of the 
claim, the Contractor states that— 

On account of the above, the Contractor was seriously delayed and put to 
large extra expense. 

By the above the Contractor means the specific claims that have 
been considered in detail in this report under money claim 6. 

On pages 63, 64, and 65 of his claim the Contractor makes a short 
statement of the facts on which he relies in support of the above 
contention. This statement of the Contractor is quoted below: 

It will be noted that serious delays occurred. A claim for extension of time 
was made by the Contractor under date of December 7, 1912, modified after 
further investigation at the Isthmus by letter to Mr. Goldmark under date of 
January IS, 1913. As a result of this claim, a supplemental agreement was 
entered into under date of May 20, 1913, between the Commission and the Con¬ 
tractor, establishing new contract dates under which the gates had to be 
finished so that water could be turned into the canal and the gates operated. 
The vital dates of this agreement are: October 1, 1913, being the date of com¬ 
pletion for all guard gates and all other gates on one side of the canal, and 
March 1, 1914, being the date of completion for the balance of the work. It is 
still claimed by the Contractor that the dates established in his letter of Janu¬ 
ary IS, 1913, were reasonable and fair. In accordance with this letter the last 
gates need not have been completed until April 8, 1914. It should be stated 
here, however, that in arriving at the dates given in this letter of January IS, 
1913, the Contractor made no allowance and put in no claim for the time re¬ 
quired to do the additional work not called for or contemplated under the con¬ 
tract. It has been shown that such work had to be done, causing great extra 
expense. This being established, it naturally follows that such extra work 
also takes time, and that work like bolting up with small holes, cleaning to a 
polish, etc., takes lots of time. Therefore, considerable time should be added 
to the dates established in the Contractor’s letter of January IS, 1913, making 
the fair date for completion much later than April 8, 1914. 

For reasons known to the Commission the Contractor was urged to use every 
effort and spare no expense to complete the work covered by this contract as 
soon as possible. 

As a matter of fact, the dates of the supplemental agreement were actually 
anticipated by the Contractor, the work called for to be finished by October 1, 

1913, and March 1, 1914, being finished by September 24, 1913, and January 26, 

1914, respectively. 

This, however, could only be accomplished by an immense amount of over¬ 
time and rush work at a very large expense to tlie Contractor, and for this 
expense the Contractor claims that he is fairly and justly entitled to proper 
compensation. 

The masonry for the gates at Pedro Miguel and Miraflores was delayed 
beyond the dates established in the contract as follows: 

Leaves 50 to 57, Pedro Miguel, 34 months. 

Leaves 58 to 61, Pedro Miguel, 4 months. 

Leaves 62 to 73, Pedro Miguel, 8 months. 

Leaves 100 to 107, Miraflores, 4 months. 

Leaves 108 to 111, Miraflores, no information. 

Leaves 112 to 115, Miraflores, 3 months. 

Leaves 116 to 119, Miraflores, 6 months. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


353 


For leaves 120 to 127 at Miraflores, the masonry for which should have beeiv 
completed by November 1, 1912, the masonry was not finished on January 20, 
1913, but was expected to be finished soon thereafter. 

The details of the way in which the Contractor arrives at the 
amount he thinks he should be allowed for rush work are stated on 
pages 82, 83, and 8d of his claim. These pages, for easy reference, 
are quoted below: 

(h) Rush work .—The table on the following page shows the total costs and 
the costs per ton for the erection of the various leaves at Miraflores. 

From this table it will be seen that leaves 124 to 127—all of which had to be 
erected in the shortest possible time—cost .$59.28 per ton. Leaves 120 to 123— 
two of which had to be erected in a great rush, otherwise the conditions being 
identical—cost $51.24. Leaves 100 to 103—all of which had to be erected in a 
great rush, although not quite as much as 124 to 127—cost $57.44. More or 
less rush work also had to be done on leaves 104 to 123, located on one side of 
the canal. 

It will be seen from the above that rushing two leaves increases the cost 
for the total tonnage of four leaves by about $8 per ton, or it is fair to state 
that if these Miraflores gates had not need to be rushed, either all the way across 
the two chambers or across one chamber only, the total cost of all these leaves 
would have been $8 per tun below the average, or about $43 per ton. 

Tabic showing erection costs at Miraflores. 


Contract 

No. 

Leaf Nos. 

Location. 

No. and 
height of 
leaves. 

Total. 

Erection cost at 
Isthmus. 

J 



No. 

Height. 


Total. 

Per ton. 

4857 

100 103 

Upper guard gates. 

4 

Ft. In. 
47 4 

Tons. 

1,567 

*90,020 

$57.44 

4859 

104-107 

Upper gates. 

Middle gates, upper lock. 

4 

77 0 

2,752 

133,056 

48.35 

48G1 

108-111 

4 

77 0 

2,738 

131,240 

47.93 

4863 

112-119 

Safety gates and lower gates, 

8 

77 0 

5,462 

270,579 

49. 53 

4865 

120-123 

upper lock. 

Lower gates, lower lock. 

4 

82 0 

2,954 

151,319 

51. 248 

4867 

124-127 

Lower guard gates. 

4 

66 0 

2,279 

135,045 

59. 28 






17,752 

911,259 

51.35 


To verify this the Contractor has made an analysis of the money spent foir 
the regular day’s work and the overtime at Miraflores, and finds as follows: 


Fay for regular hours worked_$G03, 515 

Pay for overtime (exclusive of excess rate) (27.9 per cent)_ 168, 560 

772, 075 

Excess paid white labor for overtime (7.45 per cent)- 57,532 

Total_ 829, 607 


From this will be seen that a claim of $S per ton for the rush work is 
entirely fair for the reasons: 

First. In order to get the work done the largest possible number of men was 
crowded on these leaves, which, of course, meant lack of efficiency and in¬ 
creased the cost. 

Second. These men had to work on an average 2S per cent overtime over 
the regular hours they were supposed to work. That means that every man 
all the time averaged 134 hours overtime per week. This naturally means lack 
of efficiency and increased cost. 

Third. At Miraflores the Contractor actually had to spend in excess rates 
paid for overtime to the white labor $57,532, which amounts to $3.25 per ton 
on the Miraflores tonnage, or to approximately 74 per cent of the normal cost. 

The Contractor therefore claims that on account of this rush work he had to 
incur an extra expense of $8 per ton on approximately 17,750 tons, or $142,000. 


29249°—H. Doc. 906, 64-1-23 






























354 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALI, CONSTRUCTION CO. 


In his report, volume 1, pages 120 to 126, Mr. Goldmark gives his 
recollections as to this claim, which are quoted below: 

Claim 5 (p. 63). —The gist of this claim is: 

(a) That the Contractor was required to and did complete the work in a 
shorter time than required by the original contract, on account of the extension 
of time to which he was entitled on account of delays caused by the Com¬ 
mission ; 

(b) That the Contractor had to resort to a large amount of very expensive 
rush work in the field to meet the requirements of the Commission ; and 

( c ) That even without allowing for these delays, much of the expensive 
rush work was made necessary by the failure of the Commission in not having 
the masonry completed by the date established in the original contract. 

Claim 5 {a). —As to these delays, all to which the Contractor made claim 
prior to January, 1913, were stated in a letter to the general purchasing officer, 
dated December 7, 1912, and to myself of January IS, 1933 (iile S4-C-S1, Pt. 
XI). Some details as to these delays are contained in a file marked S4-C-S1 
delays. These are mainly letters submitted by the Contractor in January, 
3913, when making his claim on the Isthmus. Attention is especially directed 
to a letter from Mr. Wolfel to his firm dated December 4, 1912, which they 
state is the basis of their letter of December 7, 1912, and contains the first 
statement of the delays claimed by them. 

These delays were thoroughly gone into by myself when they were presented, 
and a full report rendered to Col. Hodges in letter of January 27, 1912, copy 
of which has been appended to this report. Col. Hodges’s recommendation to 
the chairman was contained in a letter of February 25, 1913, and a further 
letter on the same subject from myself to Col. Hodges of February 21, 1913, 
is referred to, all in file 84-C-81, Part XI. The Contractor’s claims were sum¬ 
marized in two blue prints marked “ Exhibits A and 15,” the last revision of 
which was dated January 3S, 1913, and took the place of an earlier print of 
the same shape contained in the files of the general purchasing officer. As a 
result of the investigation, and as a part of my report, the dates which were 
on the whole admitted fair—that is, which represented the claims which the 
Commission was prepared to admit—were summarized in two white prints of 
the same shape, which are in this office, having been filed with the contractor 
at the hearings on the Isthmus. These claims represent in some cases the 
views of the local engineers, rather than my own. I think in a few cases 1 
was inclined to think that the delays allowed were smaller than they should 
have been, especially with reference to the allowance for water damage, due to 
flooding the locks and the failure of the Commission to furnish storage grounds 
and tracks at the proper time, and in proper condition. I should also say that 
delays granted in the.case of the shipwreck of the steamship Moldec/arii were 
based in part on a statement from Mr. Hammer, which gives the exact details 
and is contained in a statement filed with the papers which have been sent 
here from the Pittsburgh office. As to the delays claimed up to January, 
3913, I think the papers which I have mentioned above tell the whole story, in 
connection with a few other letters contained in Part XI of file S4-C-S1, which 
may bear upon the subject. I think the dates, etc., mentioned by Mr. Wolfel 
are correct. 

As to the delays occasioned subsequent to January, 3913, no claim for them 
had been made prior to the present “ claims.” I do not think that there was 
any subsequent delay at Pedro Miguel and Gatun which could have been com¬ 
plained of, except the general complaints as to severe inspection. At Mira- 
flores there was considerable delay caused the contractors by the flooding of 
the locks in September, 3913, and at other times; and possibly also owing to 
trouble with getting sufficient storage grounds and tracks. .The matter with 
regard to the flooding has been quite fully discussed under claim 3 (b). As to 
storage grounds at Miraflores, I have no information on this subject, and I 
do not believe any correspondence exists on this question later than Janu¬ 
ary, 1913. 

Claim 5 ( b ).—As to the claim that expensive rush work was made necessary 
by the delays, I understand that the Contractor means by this that it would 
have been necessary to resort to rush work even if the supplemental contract 
had not been made, though this is not clearly stated. It is quite true that allow¬ 
ing the Contractor all the delays he claimed in January, 3933, even without 
making any allowances for later delays, and comparing the dates which wo Id 
be thus arrived at and which were stated on his blue-printed Exhibit B with 



McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO 


355 


the actual dates of completion, he did actually finish the last leaves necessary 
for completing the locks from ocean to ocean earlier than it would have been 
obliged to. These final dates of completion were stated in a memorandum from 
myself to Col. Hodges dated February 12, 1914, file S4-C-S1, Part XVI. In many 
cases the individual gates were completed after the contract dates arrived 
at for these individual leaves by adding the delays claimed to the original 
contract dates. In other words, under the original contract liquidated damages 
would have become due for certain gates, although the gates as a whole would 
have been completed prior to the last contract date as extended. I think, how¬ 
ever, that the application of the original contract dates to all the separate 
leaves would in any event have been entirely unfair, whether any extension 
were allowed or not. The original contract dates were based in each lock on 
starting at the upper end and erecting the gates one after the other to the 
other end of the lock. This meant using only one set of erection bridges at each 
lock. As one set of bridges did not prove sufficient, the Contractor was per¬ 
mitted, and in fact urged to install additional bridges, which he did. It can read¬ 
ily be seen that this upset the whole program, advancing the completion of gates 
halfway down the lock. It would be most unfair to measure the actual date 
of completion in each individual case by the original dates set, which were 
based on other conditions. 

That rush work was resorted to—meaning by this, Sunday work and over¬ 
time—is undoubtedly true in the case of Mirallores. I do not remember to what 
extent, if any. there was overtime work at the other two locks. I think there 
was some, but I do not believe that they claimed it in so many words. That a 
much higher speed was maintained after the autumn of November, 1912, there 
is no doubt whatsoever, and the Mirallores work was finished complete in not 
over 15 months. As to just how much this high-speed work was due to the 
delays, I am not prepared to say. A part of the rush was doubtless caused by 
the fact that previous to the change of management, in September, 1913, the 
work had lagged behind badly at several points. It is proposed to discuss this 
to some extent in the last part of this report. The matter is, of course, compli¬ 
cated by the fact that the supplemental contract was entered upon which estab¬ 
lished dates not based on the exact delays shown, but was simply supposed to 
represent the needs of the Commission as to completion. If, however, the Con¬ 
tractor includes in “ delays ” the alleged unreasonable requirements of the in¬ 
spectors, etc., the question becomes still more complicated, as he nowhere states 
to what delays these requirements led. Furthermore, it may be pointed out that 
some of the delays would not come under the head of “ character and finish not 
fairly within the meaning of the specifications.” 

Claim 5 (c).—As to the claim that expensive rush work would have been 
necessary at Pedro Miguel and Mirallores because the masonry was behind time, 
the dates established for the completion of the masonry were stated in the origi¬ 
nal contract and never changed. In January 1913, certain claims were made as 
to those delays. These are identical with the statement on page 65, except as to 
leaves 120 to 127 at Miraflores, as to the completion of which I can not testify, 
but I think the date stated is about correct. When making my report in Janu¬ 
ary, 1913, I allowed the claims for masonry as stated by them. In other words, 
they were right as to the time of completion. According to the strict wording of 
the contract, they were entitled to an extension of time regardless of whether 
the delay in not having the masonry finished caused them delay or expense. 
As a matter of fact, the Commission has always claimed that they were not 
delayed—that is, they were not ready to start work until after the masonry was 
finished. My recollection is that this statement is correct. On the other hand, 
we could not judge whether they would have been ready exactly in all cases. 
Knowing, in certain cases at Pedro Miguel and Miraflores, that the masonry was 
not likely to be ready judging by conditions they saw, for several months, they 
naturally arranged their work elsewhere, both on the Isthmus and possibly in 
the shops, to meet changed conditions. The dates on which, according to our 
records, the masonry was ready, and also the date at which they actually began 
work is given (p. 126, this report) in a copy of a statement prepared for me 
about January, 1913 (file 84-C-81-XI). Of course, this shows merely the time 
they started to work, but does not show whether they could possibly have 
started work earlier if the masonry had been ready. 

As to the damages they suffered from not having this masonry ready, this is 
still harder to state in exact terms. I never had any evidence that they did 
suffer damage from this, though there may have been a few days that they were 
delayed. I think at the lower end of Gatun, at the guard gates, they were 


356 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO, 


certainly put to extra expense, because the masonry, or perhaps rather the earth 
tilling hack of the masonry, did not permit them to use their ordinary method of 
erection, so that these gates had to he erected in a different manner, which cost 
more money and took more time, though I can not state the exact time or 
expense. 

Completion of masonry for lock gates in Pedro Miguel and Miraflores Locks. 


Leaves. 

Contract 
dates for 
masonry. 

Actual dates 
masonry fin¬ 
ished. 

Dates for 
masonry 
claimed by 
McClintic- 
Marshall. 

Erection of 
gates actually 
begun. 

Pedro Miguel. 

Upper guard gates. 

Mar. 11,1911 
.do. 

June 17,1911 
.do. 

June 17,1911 
.do. 

Aug. 7,1911 
Jan. 29,1911 
June 18,1912 
Dec. 15,1911 
May 1,1912 
Apr. 9,1912 

Sept. 10,1912 
Nov. 23,1912 

Upper gates. 

Intermediate gates.. 

.do. 

Apr. 1,1911 
Nov. 1,1911 
.do. 

July 1,1911 
Oct. 11,1911 
.do. 

Safetv gates. 

.do. 

Lower gates. 

.do. 

Lower guard gates... 

.do. 

Nov. 14,1911 

Jan. 2,1912 
.do. 

.do. 

Miraflores: 

Unper guard gates. 

Sept. 1,1911 
.do. 

Jan. 1,1912 
.do. 

Upper gates... 

Intermediate gates. 

Jan. 1,1912 
Juno 1,1912 

Jan. 1,1912 
Sept. 3,1312 


Safetv gates. 

Sept. 3,1912 

Oct. 23,1912 

Lower gate. 

Upper lock... 

June 1,1912 
Nov. 1,1912 
.do. 

Dec. 1,1912 

Dec. 3,1912 

Jan. 24,1913 

Lower gates. 

Lower guard gates. 










Notf.— The above statement refers only to Pedro Miguel and Miraflorcs Locks. There never was any 
question as to the dates of completion at Gatun. 


On pages 201, 202, and 203 of his testimony, volume 8, Mr. Gold- 
mark states: 

Q. There is a claim made here that the Contractor had to resort to a very 
large amount of rush work in the field to meet the requirements mentioned. 
In a general way, do you know anything about that?—A. Well, they did do a 
great deal of rush work; there is no doubt about that, because they were the 
only people that worked Sundays and overtime. My inspectors had to work 
Sunday after Sunday to inspect the work that was done on Sunday; and the 
work went on until dark; and at Miraflores—I think that is where most of the 
rush work was, and also at the lower end of Gatun where six gates were—I 
have never seen work rushed harder anywhere than it was there for a long 
time. I mean Miraflores was very rapidly built; hut toward the end, after 
definite limits had been laid down, it was a case of the kind of rush work that 
certainly cost more money than ordinary work, even when pushed. It was not 
the most economical way of doing it. The men were more or less in each 
other’s way; and they were paying, I suppose, higher pay per hour for the 
overtime; and in that climate each man’s efficiency was without any question 
cut down, not only for the overtime work, hut for the whole work. 

I should say that that fact, that they did resort to expensive rush work, is 
undoubtedly true. As to its being necessary to meet the requirements of the 
Commission, why I think that is true, too, because the chairman laid down 
certain dates which he wanted met, and I did not think, and I told him I 
doubted whether they could he met. He said they would have to be met, and 
they were met; and as to how that all came in with the contract dates and 
delays I do not know. But, in a general way,, it was to meet the requirements 
of the Commission. 

The testimony referred to and commented on by the Contractor 
in support of this claim is found in his brief, pages 141 to 157. 

The extent to which the supplemental agreement entered into 
between the Contractor and the Isthmian Canal Commission, dated 
May 20, 1913, should affect this claim will be considered at this point. 
This supplemental contract is quoted in full in this report, beginning 
at page 271. It contains this provision : 

It is further understood and agreed that the above provisions fixing new 
dates for completion of the various gates and providing a new basis for de- 









































McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


357 


termining the amount of liquidated damages due in case of delay in completion 
of the gates after such dates shall constitute a full and final settlement of all 
and any claims on account of delays and of all and any such claims for dam¬ 
ages which have heretofore arisen or which may arise out of any delays which 
have occurred prior to the date of this contract, either on the part of the Con¬ 
tractor or on the part of the Commission, and that the determination of the 
causes of any delays in completion of any part of the work covered by this 
contract which may occur after the date hereof, and whether the Contractor 
is entitled to additional time within which to complete any part of the work, 
shall be made in the manner and under the conditions provided In the original 
contract of June 21, 1910. 

It will be noted from this agreement that from the provisions 
quoted it was intended as a full and final settlement of all and 
any claims on account of delays and of all and any such claims for 
damages which have heretofore arisen or which may arise out of any 
delays which have occurred prior to the date of this contract, either 
on the part of the Contractor or on the part of the Commission. 

It will also be noted that it provides that delays subsequent to the 
making of the contract shall be allowed as provided for in the origi¬ 
nal contract, dated June 21. 1910. 

Under the terms of the original contract the only damages which 
the Government could recover by reason of delays on the part of the 
Contractor were the liquidated damages provided for in the contract. 
It is entirely problematical as to how far the Government might have 
been damaged by reason of delays and dilatory methods on the part 
of the Contractor, if this supplemental agreement had net been en¬ 
tered into. It was entered into with the full knowledge and a com¬ 
plete understanding that it would be necessary to resort to very 
strenuous efforts to complete the contract within the time provided 
for. In making this supplemental contract the Government was not 
in a position to urge any damages which it might have felt that it 
sustained by reason of the dilatory methods of the Contractor in the 
beginning of the work, except such as were liquidated in the original 
contract. 

It would neither be fair, just, nor equitable to go back of this sup¬ 
plemental contract and take into consideration the delays that had 
occurred subsequently to the making of the contract and make them 
the basis of an allowance to compensate the Contractor for comply¬ 
ing with the provisions of this supplemental contract. 

The effort of the Contractor to make the delays cumulative and 
to recover for extra work that he was required to do to meet the 
stipulations contained in the supplemental contract do not seem to 
be justified, and the allowance to be made under this claim for rush 
work will be confined as nearly as can be done to such delays as 
.resulted from causes not covered by the adjudication made in the 
supplemental contract. 

Under this view of the ease the only delays for which compensation 
should be allowed as such, under the act of June 24, 1914, are defies 
that occurred subsequent to the making of this supplemental con¬ 
tract, or delays which did result from doing the work “under re¬ 
quirements as to character and finish not fairly within the meaning 
of the specifications ” which were not covered by that or some other 
supplemental agreement, or which occurred subsequently to the mak¬ 
ing of this supplemental agreement. 

The extent to which the Contractor should be held responsible for 
the performance of his contracts and the extent to which the Govern- 


358 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


ment should be held responsible for results has been pretty thor¬ 
oughly analyzed in attempting to establish proper cost at Miraflores 
independently of the rush work. It is believed the division of re¬ 
sponsibility for the various specific claims is an equitable one. and 
that the same percentage should obtain as to rush work. At the other 
lock sites there was not so much rush work, but the interference by 
the Commission was greater, and the methods of the Contractor were 
also much more dilatory. 

In an exhaustive report by Mr. Goldmark to Col. Hodges, dated 
June IT, 1912, contained in’“Letters copied from files,” beginning 
with page 85, he shows the condition of the work at that date and 
gives his reason why no better progress had been made. This report 
is quoted below: 

Herewith certain data regarding the lock gates, which may be of use in 
discussing the progress of erection with Mr. Marshall. 

The attached tabulation shows by percentages the condition of the erection 
on June 1, 1912. It makes the backward condition of the work as a whole 
very apparent. 

(1) As to erection: The status is fairly satisfactory. The following program 
as to gates not yet erected should be met without great difficulty, if there is 
no shortage of material: 



Erection 

begun. 

Finish 

erection. 

Gatun: 

Bridge No. 1— 



Safety gates... 

Apr. 1,1912 
July 5,1912 

Julv 1,1912 
Sept. 6,1912 

Lower gates, lower lock. 

Middle gates, middle lock. 

Sept. 20,1912 

Nov. 22,1912 

Lower gates, middle lock. 

Nov. 25,1912 

Feb. 1,1913 

Bridge No. 4— 



Middle gates, lower lock. 

Apr. 12,1912 

Aug. 1,1912 

Lower gates, lower lock. 

Aug. 4,1912 

Oct. 7,1912 

Lower guard gates. 

Oct. 10,1912 

Dec. 15,1912 

Pedro Miguel Locks: 

Bridge No. 2, middle gates. 

June 20,1912 

Aug. 22,1912 

Bridge No. 3, lower gates. 

May 1,1912 

Aug. 3,1912 

Yard crane, lower guard gates. 

June 1,1912 

Aug. 1,1912 

Miraflores Locks, upper lock; 

Bridce No. 3— 



Upper guard gates. 

Aug. 15,1912 

Oct. 11.1912 

Upper gates. 

Oct. 15,1912 
Dec. 20,1912 

Dec. 17,1912 
Feb. 22,1913 

Middle gates. 

Bridge No. 2— 

Safety gates.... 

Sept. 10,1912 
Nov. 15,1912 

Nov. 12,1912 
Jan. 17,1913 

Lower gates, upper lock. 

Bridge No. 4 — 



Lower gates, lower lock. 

Jan. 10,1913 

Mar. 14,1913 

Lower guard gates. 

Mar. 18,1913 

May 20,1913 


(2) As to reaming: The outlook is less promising. 


Gatun: 

Total reamed holes in all leaves_ 2, 400, 000 

Reamed to June 1, 1912_ 67b! 000 


Balance to be reamed June 1, 1912_ 1, 725. 000 


Monthly rate—• 

March, 1912_1_ 54, 351 

April, 1912- 112, 399 

May, 1912- 156,391 


The rate for May was 6,000 holes per working day. At this rate it would 
take 11 months to complete the reaming at Gatun, i. e., till May 1, 1913. To 
complete one side of the locks at Gatun for operation would require only 
1,000,000 holes to be reamed after June 1, 1912. At 6,000 holes per day this 





































McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


359 


could be accomplished by November 15, 1912, if there were enough steel erected. 
This would probably not be the case, but the reaming should follow quite close 
after the finishing of the erection. 

1'edro Miguel: 

Total reamed holes, all leaves_ 1, 400, 000 

Reamed to June 1, 3912_ 3S0, 000 


Balance to be reamed, June 1, 1912_ 1, 020, 000 

If the rate at Pedro Miguel can be raised to 0,000 per working day, all holes 
would be completed by about November 20, 1912, which would be satisfactory. 

Miraflores : Total reamed holes, all leaves_:_1, TGO, 000 

Reaming may begin at Miraflores by October 1, 1912. At G,000 holes per day 
it would require 11 months, or until September 1, 1913, to complete the reaming 
on both sides of the lock. The 1,100,000 holes which would be required for com¬ 
pleting one side only could be reamed by May 1, 1913, but it would probably 
take till June 1, owing to lack of erected steel. By concentrating all reamers 
at Miraflores both chambers could be completed by that date. 

The reaming at both divisions has been held back by a shortage in erected 
steel and by an inexcusable lack of fitting up bolts. With a reasonable addition 
to the number of small reamers there should be no trouble in increasing the 
daily output of reamed holes to 8,000 or 9,000, which would relieve the situa¬ 
tion fully. 

(3) As to riveting. The situation is as follows: 


Gatun: 

Total field rivets_ 2, 520. 000 

Driven to June 1, 1912- 452,000 


Balance ---2. 0GS, 000 


Monthly rate—• 

March_ 50, 071 

April_ 66,049 

May_ 73, G45 

The last-named figure corresponds to 3,000 rivets per working day. At this 
rate it would take 2 years and 3 months to complete both chambers at Gatun, 
or until September 1, 1914. For one side only (requiring 1,165,000 rivets), at 
3.000 per day, it would take 15 months, or until September 1, 1913. By in¬ 
creasing the "output 50 per cent, to 4,500 rivets per day, both chambers would 
be completed in 17 months, or by November 1, 1913, and one chamber by April 
1. 1913. 


Pedro Miguel: 

Total field rivets-— 482, 000 

Driven to June 1, 1912- 346,000 


Balance 


1,136, 000 


Monthly rate— 

March- 

April_ 

May- 


57, 368 
69, 354 
50, 800 


At 3 000 rivets per day, both chambers would take 15 months, or till Sep¬ 
tember 1 1913 and one chamber (requiring 700,000 rivets) would take 9 months, 
or till March 1, 1913, to complete; at 4,500 rivets per day, the corresponding 
dates of completion would be April 1, 1913, and December 1, 1J12. 

Miraflores : Total field rivets-1. 756, 000 


If riveting begins October 1, 1912, it would take, at 3,000 rivets per day, till 
August 15 1914 to complete both chambers and till November 1. 1913, to com¬ 
plete one chamber (1,000,000 field rivets). At 4,500 rivets; per day the corre¬ 
sponding times would be September 1, 1913, and March 1,1913, respectively. 

It is clear that a large increase in the rivet output is imperative. At present 
there are not over 50 “guns” at work; the average daily number of rivets 
driven was 5,300 in May, or about 100 per gun. A fair average would be 300 


























360 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


In shipyards, 500 to GOO is common practice. The lew figure is undoubtedly 
mainly due to the totally untrained labor largely employed on this work. The 
compressor plants will hardly supply over 70 guns. It is evidently necessary 

(1) to get additional compressed air for more guns; or (2) to work night and 
day; or (3) to use a better class of labor with increased output per gun. 

A combination of all three alternatives will probably be necessary. 

(4) As to “finishing.” This includes the grinding of the end plates along 
the quoin and miter posts; the attachment of the end reaction castings and 
wedges and their adjustment, drilling, bolting, and riveting; the placing of 
the leaves on the pintles, and their attachment to the anchorages; the calking 
and testing for water-tightness and adjustment and babbitting of the end bear¬ 
ing plates; the adjustment of the sills; the painting and cementing and the 
placing of the footwalk railings, etc. So far this part of the work has proved 
extremely slow. The “finishing” of the first 4 leaves began at Gatun before 
February 1 and will hardly be completed by August 1, six months in all. Much 
of this work should be done by competent machinists, and at best requires con¬ 
siderable time. It is clear to me that the only way in which it can be completed 
in time is to begin the preparation of the ends, grinding, fitting, bolting of 
castings at an early stage of the erection, concomitantly with the reaming and 
riveting of the sheathing. In this way, when the riveting is completed, the 
end castings would also be fully adjusted and bolted. A considerable force of 
machinists, etc., would be required to do this, but the total cost would be no 
greater than with the lack of system. 

I am satisfied that in the conduct of the entire work a radical change is nec¬ 
essary to avoid great disappointment in the completion of the gates. Some of 
the weak points in the present regime are the following: 

(1) An almost total lack of esprit de corps among the men. There are con¬ 
stant friction and constant changes among the white Americans, many leaving, 
others ready to leave. 

(2) Too few expert riveters familiar with plate or ship work. Too many 
unskilled negroes employed as riveters and being slowly trained at our expense. 

(3) Lack of any foremen familiar with water-tight work. 

(4) A lack of a sufficient number of machinists properly organized. 

(5) Lack of foresight as to furnishing a sufficient number of tools, such as 
grinding wheels, and even ordinary fitting up bolts. The work has stood still 
mvmy times from this last cause, even to the present time. 

(G) Lack of planning so that the various parts of the work may progress 
together. 

There is apparently no reason why the “ erection ” should not proceed rapidly 
from now on, and there are no difficulties as to fitting of the plates, casting, etc. 
It is entirely a matter of providing labor, materials, and tools in sufficient 
quantity and utilizing them properly. There should be no unsurmountable 
dilficulty in accomplishing this. 

This memorandum was prepared at the time of the contemplated 
change in the management by the Contractor, also at a time when 
the question of making the proper progress in the erection of the 
lock gates was acute. It was prepared % Mr. Goldmark, who had 
been in charge of the work up to that time and who expected to con¬ 
tinue in charge of the work and to be responsible for results. It is 
believed, therefore, that it, in a general way at least, represents the 
actual conditions as they existed at the time it was prepared. In his 
report prepared on this claim, volume 1, under the heading of “ Gen¬ 
eral remarks,” he discussed quite fully the conditions as they existed 
before and after the change in the management. The part of his 
report covering this subject is contained in pages 139 to 149, inclusive, 
quoted below: 

GENERAL REMARKS ON THE ERECTION. 

The preceding portion of this report has been devoted to discussing in de¬ 
tail the various claims made by the Contractor. Most of these refer to charges 
that the requirements of the Commission, as to inspection, etc., had been more 
severe than warranted by the specifications or by first-class practice on other 
w»n-k. Some of the claims, however, include other ways in which the Com- 




McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO 


361 


mission, it is charged, was at fault, or at least delayed the Contractor un¬ 
necessarily and put him to greater expense. There were also some delays not 
mentioned by the Contractor which did delay the work, but which it is not 
claimed were due to any action of the Commission—such as the loss of a con¬ 
siderable quantity of material on the steamship Moldegard, lost by shipwreck. 
The claims are misleading, as the total rush work required to make up for the 
delays is implicitly charged up against delays caused by the Commission, while 
there is no doubt that delays owing to acts of God, etc., did also delay the 
completion of the work. For such delays the Contractor was entitled, under 
the contract, to an extension of time, but not to extra compensation. The 
claim of the Contractor is distinctly a claim that all expenses incurred by him, 
over and above what he estimated upon, were caused by improper acts of the 
Commission. 

This report would not be complete if it did not cover the question whether 
any increased expense and delay was not occasioned by actions of the Con¬ 
tractor, such as failure to prosecute the work in a proper way, to supply 
proper erection plant, tools, materials, erection force, etc. 

The delay and expense may have been due in part to bad management in 
the shipment of material from the shops, so that certain gates were held up 
in the field. 

The erection plan and methods adopted by the Contractor and approved at 
the beginning were on the whole excellent. They were changed to a very slight 
extent during the progress of the work. It must also be stated, as strongly 
as possible, that the work, when completed, was extremely good—more than 
fulfilling the expectations of the engineers. Furthermore, after the difficulties 
encountered with the first eight leaves, the shopwork was also far above 
the average, the fitting of all parts was almost perfect, and I have never 
known less errors to be met with in the fitting of the several parts. Further, 
the spirit in which the Contractors did the work from beginning to end was 
extremely good. They met the requirements of the inspectors with very little 
complaint at any time. As noted above, the methods used in the erection, as 
far as general plan, machinery, etc., are concerned, were beyond criticism, but 
during the period ending about September 1, 1912, if the erection is con¬ 
sidered in detail, it must be said that in many ways it was not efficient. The 
number of men for whom accommodations were to be furnished by the Com¬ 
mission was specified in the original bid, and in a cable from the general pur¬ 
chasing officer to Col. Hodges, June 17, 1910, file 84-C-S1, Part II, he quotes 
the Contractor as saying: 

“ Quarters will be required for 125 skilled whites and 150 colored laborers 
on each division.” 

This, of course, was a decided underestimate. I think it can also be fairly 
said that the foremen put in charge at the beginning were not men of suffi¬ 
cient capacity to handle this enormous contract, exceeding perhaps, all others 
ever let. Both the foremen first employed at Gatun were men of rather small 
experience, at least as far as I know, and I do not think their command over 
their men was what it should have been. At Pedro Miguel, I think, the work 
was hampered to some extent by the disagreements between the local super¬ 
intendent and the general manager at Gatun. At any rate, when the manage¬ 
ment was changed in September, 1912, the class of men put in charge was very 
much superior. 

There is no doubt that the work of erection was hampered for a long time 
by the failure to receive material from the States. In some cases large 
amounts of steel were received, but for some reason or other some important 
parts were not sent, which were necessary in order to begin and to prosecute 
the work properly. As early as August IS, 1911, only a few months after the 
beginning of the work, Mr. Jewel writes that he is ordering one additional set 
of ^erection bridges in order to complete the work more rapidly though it is 
true that he claims that the additional equipment is needed owing to serious 
delay in getting the work started. On August 28, 1911, the chairman, writing 
to Maj. Boggs, says that the progress made up to that time indicates very 
clearly that the contractors will he unable to live up to the dates stated in the 
contract for the completion of the gates by sets. Maj. Boggs is urged to take 
the matter up with the Contractors. 

November 25, 1911, Mr. Marshall to the chairman writes agreeing to order 
a third set of erection bridges if necessary, and promises that the work will 
soon be in better shape. 

December 8 , 1911, Mr. IT. Goldmark to Mr. Rousseau states that half the 
material has been shipped from the shops, but that only 7 per cent has been 


362 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


erected and 3 per cent of the total number of all rivets driven. The need of 
a larger force is urged. 

In letter of same date, Mr. Rousseau makes some recommendations to the 
chairman. 

February 21, 1912, Col. Hodges writes to Mr. Jewel referring to the delay 
in completing the upper guard gates at Gatun, which were to have been 
finished November 1, 1911. Col. Hodges says: 

“ Great leniency has been shown you in regard to the delay in completing 
the gates.” 

He also says: 

“ It is quite clear to me that this work is not being pushed with sufficient, 
energy. Apparently you do not realize the seriousness of your position, and 
I am writing you this letter to urge once more the necessity of greater energy 
in prosecuting this work, increasing your force of skilled laborers, etc.” 

April 20, 1912, chairman to Mr. Jewel, again calls his attention to the need 
of completing the upper guard gates at Gatun. He states that the first leaf 
was not swung until April 16, while a large amount of work remains to be done. 

June 4, 1912, Mr. Marshall, to the chairman, says that he begs to advise: 

“ That we will arrange to conduct our work on the Isthmus in a manner which 
we trust will be satisfactory to you. We have made so many predictions as to 
what we were going to do that we realize that you are now more interested in 
results than you are in promises. We are disappointed that we have not made 
a better showing up to date, and, of course, we can find excuses for all of the 
delays; but we will not trouble you with reciting them at this time. We still 
have hopes that the work will be finished up finally within the contract time. 
In the meantime we are using every effort in our power to advance the work 
as rapidly as possible. We hope that there will he no further contingencies 
arise over which we have no control, which would further delay the work. I 
expect to arrive on the Isthmus about the 20th and will be prepared to go over 
the matter in detail with you.” 

On June 17, 1912, I wrote a memorandum to Col. Hodges, giving certain data 
“ which may be of use in discussing the progress of erection with Mr. Mar¬ 
shall,” and giving the exact status of the work. The erection proper—that is, 
the raising of the steel—was fairly satisfactory. As to the reaming, the outlook 
was less promising. Three-fourths of the rivets remained to be reamed at 
Gatun, and about the same at Pedro Miguel. No reaming had been done at 
Miraflores. I said: 

“ The reaming has been held back by a shortage in erected steel and by an 
inexcusable lack of fitting up bolts.” 

As to the riveting, 452,000 rivets had been driven at Gatun out of 2,520,000. 
At this rate it would take 2 years and 3 months to complete the riveting at 
Gatun. At Pedro Miguel, 346,000 had been driven out of 1,482,000, so that it 
would take, at that rate, 15 months longer to complete the work. At Miraflores 
no rivets had been driven. I said: 

“ It is clear that a large increase in the rivet output is imperative. At present 
there are not over 50 pneumatic riveters at work. The average daily number of 
rivets driven is 5,300 in the month of May, or about 100 per machine. A fair 
average would be 300 in shipyards, though 500 to 600 is the common practice. 
The low figure is undoubtedly mainly due to the totally untrained labor largely 
employed on this work. The compressor plants will hardly supply over 70 guns. 
It is evidently necessary (1) to get additional compressed air for more guns, 
or (2) to work night and day, or (3) to use a better class of labor with in¬ 
creased output per gun. A combination of all three alternatives will probably 
be necessary.” 

The finishing is stated as being extremely slow. It is further stated: 

“ I am satisfied that in the conduct of the entire work a radical change is 
necessary to avoid great disappointment in the completion of the gates. Some 
of the weak points in the present regime are the following: 

“(1) An almost total lack of esprit de corps among the men. There is con¬ 
stant friction and constant changes among the white Americans, many leaving 
and others ready to leave. 

“(2) Few expert riveters familiar with bolted or ship work. Too many 
unskilled negroes employed as riveters and being slowly trained at our expense. 

“(3) A lack of any foremen familiar with water-tight work. 

“(4) A lack of a sufficient number of machinists properly organized. 

'*(5) A lack of foresight as to furnishing a sufficient number of tools, such as 
grinding w’heels and even ordinary fitting-up bolts. The work has stood still 
many times from this last cause, even to the present time. 



McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


363 


(0) A lack of plan so that the various parts of the work may progress 

1 liei e is apparently no reason why the * erection ’ should not proceed rapidly 
10 m no\\ on, and there are no difficulties as to the fitting of the plates, castings, 
etc. It is entirely a matter of providing labor, materials, and tools in sufficient 
. anc ^ utilizing them properly. There should be no unsurmountable 
difficulty in accomplishing this.” 

1 think this letter covers the subject quite fully. I am inclined to think 
that my complaint as to the class of riveters, while correct enough at the time, 
would be misleading unless I stated my present opinion, namely: That the use 
of colored riveters was the proper thing. Ultimately they were trained without 
special trouble and did by far the greater part of the work in an entirely 
creditable manner. 


On June 25, 1012, Col. Hodges asks the Contractor to inform him in detail 
of the steps proposed to be taken to hasten the completion. 

Mr. Marshall came to the Isthmus at that time and went over the work in 
some detail. He was at that time not satisfied with the progress and promised 
improvement. 

July 10 a further letter is written by the chairman to Mr. McKinley, acting 
manager of erection, urging the completion of the upper guard gates at Pedro 
Miguel. He says: 

“ My patience is entirely exhausted with the lack of energy and activity 
which is displayed in the conduct of the work in general; in the finishing o*f 
half-done work in especial.” 

On the same date the chairman wrote a letter to McClintic-Marshall, at 
Pittsburgh, inclosing the last letter, in which he says: 

‘ I had hoped that the recent visit of your president to the Isthmus would 
have resulted in energetic, active progress on the lock gates, but I regret to 
say that there is no evidence that such a result has been accomplished. Your 
employees here either can not or will not push the work on your contract as it 
should be done. I make no attempt to place the blame, but state a fact which 
is patent to any observer. As you are well aware, the portion of your work 
which is causing the principal delay is the riveting. Last week some 50.000 
rivets were driven, and you had, say, 51 machine gangs and 4 hand gangs at 
work. I need not say that the stated number of rivets is no adequate output 
to the number of gangs. There must be inefficiency somewhere, and it seems to 
me that it is your duty to find it and remedy it. You should either get better 
work from your gangs or increase the number. You now need nearly 100,000 
rivets per week to keep up to your schedule. Please let me know at once what 
steps you intend to take to improve matters.” 

The reply to this was a letter from Marshall to the chairman, dated August G, 
1912, in which he announces the change of management. He further writes to 
Col. Hodges, on August 9: 

“As you know from our conversation during my last visit to the Isthmus, 
we were not satisfied with the way our work was being handled.” 

lie states that he is sending Mr. W. M. Sterrett to act as manager and Mr. 
J. O. Childers to act as superintendent of erection under Mr. Sterrett. 

“ These are the very best men in our employ, and we hope that they will 
secure the desired results.” 

These letters are given in order to show the long-continued complaint made 
by the Commission and to indicate somewhat in detail just what was com¬ 
plained of. Subsequent to the change of management there are absolutely no 
complaints on file. Jhe equipment was largely increased. Spare parts which 
had been missing to a considerable extent were supplied for all machinery. A 
better spirit prevailed among the men, and within a few months the output 
was enormously increased. Absolutely no criticisms can be made of the way 
in which the work was carried on after September, 1912. The number of 
rivets rose to a maximum of 600,000 in one month, as compared with one- 
third as much previously. The increase in the number of men is shown on a 
blue printed table submitted herewith, which was compiled from the inspector’s 
reports, and is rather an underestimate of the total number of men. At Gatun 
the number was about doubled, and also at Pedro Miguel. Miraflores had 
hardly been begun prior to the change in management. The total number of 
men shown on the table is about 4,700, but it was probably nearer 5,300 for one 
month, at least. The gradual decrease in the force as the work was being 
completed is also clearly shown. 


364 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


There is no doubt whatsoever that the work in the earlier months of the 
erection was hampered badly by lack of material, and it is also true that it 
was absolutely necessary to experiment to a certain extent so as to arrive at 
the best method of erection. In many respects the work of erection merited 
high praise from the very beginning. The leaves were, with very few excep¬ 
tions, extremely straight and true, and the work generally of a very high degree 
of excellence. I think, however, that an unprejudiced view of the erection 
during the first year would lead to the conviction that the plant and tools and 
men were not sufficient, and that they were not handled in such a way as to 
give the very best results. This is a matter, of course, difficult to show by 
figures, and I hesitate to express any opinion too decidedly, as the difficulties 
to be met with in this huge work were very great indeed. (I am quite sure that 
any statement that actions of the Commission or the inspectors hampered the 
work are an absolute distortion of the facts.) The foremen at the different 
locks and the different gates were frequently changed and the inspectors were 
often the only men who had detailed knowledge of just what the experience 
had been in the different parts of the work. Inspectors were, therefore, neces¬ 
sarily called upon to point out the diffculties to be met with, and as the work 
proceeded, to make sure that nothing was done which was irremediable; that 
is, no mistakes made in the erection which could not be corrected afterwards. 
Many of the gates stood for a long time in an incompleted condition, more 
especially, I think, at the Pedro Miguel Lock. Many small corrections were 
made from time to time; the foremen were changed; it was only the inspectors 
who kept a record of just what had been done. 

Before the gates were painted or cleaned for painting, in fact before the 
water test was made, it was necessary to make a very careful search through 
the gates to find rivets that were omitted, pieces of material wrongly placed, 
etc. The replacing of these rivets—one here and one there—was of course a 
very expensive piece of work, and one that caused more or less complaint and 
friction. It was absolutely necessary, however, to do this. 

I must repeat that there was absolutely no hitch in what we may call the 
major part of the work. The tests for water-tightness were made in ail cases 
without the slightest difficulty. The attachment of the gates to the anchor¬ 
ages was easily made, and the gates were rolled into place readily. The de¬ 
flections under their own weights were very small; everything indicated that 
the work was of a very high grade. There were certain points as to the in¬ 
spection, the grinding of the ends and the acceptance of rivets, the bolting up, 
etc., on which the inspectors and the Contractor’s men at times differed. But 
considering the large amount of work to be done, the distance from the United 
States, the difficulty of insuring that every piece of steel should be on hand at 
exactly the right time for completing each individual gate, etc., I think the 
troubles were rather less in proportion than I have met with in large bridges 
in the United States. The final results obtained, the erection methods, and the 
erection itself as a whole, were distinctly creditable to the Contractors, and the 
gates as they stood completed were, as far as I know, entirely beyond criticism. 

The above statement has been prepared by me after carefully going over the 
files of correspondence brought to this office from the Isthmus, and also the 
letters and reports from the assistant engineer’s office at Pittsburgh, which 
refer to the approval of plans, and the shop and mill inspection. The state¬ 
ment is based on my recollection regarding the various points raised, and the 
information contained in the correspondence, and represents, to the best of 
my knowledge, the opinion I held regarding the different points at the time. 
The matters treated <3¥, except where modified in the statement, also represent 
what I now consider to be a true account of the points at Issue. 

I hereby certify that the statements contained in the above report, where 
based upon personal recollection are true to the best of my knowledge and 
belief; and that where based upon correspondence, they represent a fair state¬ 
ment as to what the correspondence shows. 

That the statements contained in the report of Mr. Goldmark 
quoted above and in his memorandum of June 17, 1912, pretty ac¬ 
curately state the conditions as they existed at that time is shown 
by the testimony of Mr. H. H. McClintic taken at Bankin July 1, 
1915, volume 19, pages 59 to 91, inclusive. Mr. McClintic, in his 
testimony, substantially agrees with most of the statements made 
by Mr. Goldmark, but he attributes a considerable part of the delay 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


365 


and slow progress to the inspection, either in the United States or on 
the Isthmus. The exhibits introduced in connection with his testi¬ 
mony, from 1 to 8, inclusive, deal largely with the progress of erec¬ 
tion made up to that time. On page 67, Mr. McClintic states that 
Mr. Jewel had trouble in getting his men, and the main reason for 
this was that business had picked up in the United States and men 
preferred employment there to employment on the Isthmus. He 
further stated that there was some difficulty in securing the neces¬ 
sary married quarters. Mr. McClintic made a trip to the Isthmus 
in January, 1912. lie was asked the object of that trip and stated 
(see pp. 73 to 75 of his testimony, vol. 19) : 

A. My next trip to the Isthmus was early in 1912, Mr. Marshall and I went 
to the Isthmus at that time to investigate conditions and see what could he done 
to expedite the work. I requested Mr. Marshall to go down with me for the 
reason that I was convinced that a change should be made in the management 
and organization on the Isthmus if the work was to be completed on time to 
meet the Government's requirements. 

After investigating conditions, Mr. Marshall believed that the best interests 
of the company and the Government would he served by not making a change 
at that time. In July, 1912. he became convinced that a change was necessary 
and it was promptly made, Mr. Sterrett being put in charge of the work on the 
Isthmus. 

(Above answer substituted by permission, July 2, 1915.) 

Q. What condition did you find the work in when you get down there?—A. 
Well, the progress of the work was slow. 

Q. What do you think was the cause or the causes of the slow progress that 
was being made?—A. Personally, I was not satisfied with the way Mr. Jewel 
was handling the work. 

Q. Well, that would be one reason; now, what others?—A. That was the 
reason. 

Q. What condition did you find the storage yards in?—A. Well, without go¬ 
ing into the details, what we were looking for was results; Mr. Jewel was not 
getting the results. 

Q. Well, did you investigate sufficiently at the time to satisfy yourself as to 
the particular reasons or causes why Mr. Jewel was not getting the results?— 
A. Yes; Mr. Marshall and I went over the work thoroughly with Mr. Jewel, 
and I felt satisfied that he would not get results, due to the manner in which 
he was handling the work. 

Q. Well, was that due to his inability to properly organize his force and to 
control it?—A. That was due to all of the causes. 

Q. All of what causes?—A. The causes—the conditions on the Isthmus and 
his own ability, and all, at that time. 

Q. Then, as a matter of fact, you did not consider at that time that the or¬ 
ganization was in the proper condition to produce the necessary results?—A. 
Not at that time. This was not, however, entirely Mr. Jewel’s fault. He had 
been held up for lack of material, due to delays at the shop, so that his force 
became disorganized, and he was unable to get proper results. This delay was 
caused largely through the fault of the Commission in failing to furnish the 
necessary information to proceed with the work and a lack of decision in 
inspecting and accepting work and in lack of inspecting and accepting materials 
and finished work. 

The exhibits referred to, explaining the causes of delays, do not 
attribute any great part of such delays to a lack of material, except 
in the beginning of the work. In a letter dated November 25, 1911, 
Exhibit 4 of Mr. McClintic’s testimony, volume 19, Mr. Marshall 
stated: 

A great deal of the delay up to the present time has been on account of lack 
of proper material at the Isthmus. We experienced a great deal of trouble in 
getting this work started in the shop, and early in the work the progress was 
indeed discouraging, but things have straightened themselves out so that there 


366 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


is no question but what we could make complete shipment of all the material 
long before it is required. We are in hopes that the erection will line up in 
an equally satisfactory manner in the very near future. 

In explaining the delay, May 7,1912, Exhibit 6 in Mr. McClintic’s 
testimony, Mr. Marshall states that they were being held up on ac¬ 
count of material which was lost on the steamship Moldegaard. He 
also states that material was being held up on account of a strike ot 
stevedores at Baltimore, and that he had arranged to reship some- 
4,000 tons from Baltimore to New York. On September 18, 1912, in 
a letter from Mr. Hammer to the McClintic-Marshall Construction 
Co., he complained of the small tonnage during the month of August. 
In a ktter of September 26, 1912, Exhibit No. 8 of Mr. McClintic’s 
testimcn} 7 ', volume 19, written by Mr. McClintic, he stated: 

As you know, we have been terribly handicapped on account of breakdowns 
in our power house for the last two months, which largely accounts for this 
small tonnage. 

These facts, which have been discussed in detail in this report here¬ 
tofore. indicate pretty clearly that the progress of erection prior to 
July, 1912, had been interfered with by a great many causes for which 
the Government was not responsible. 

The first steel was erected May 27, 1911. In a report made by Mr. 
Jewel December 1, 1911. copied from Isthmian files, part 2, No. 17, 
copy of which is found in u Letters copied from United States files,” 
page 195, he shows that the total tonnage erected to that date was 
3,475; holes reamed. 194,291; and riveted, 176,788. In a report dated 
December 8, 1911, Mr. Dumville states the approximate number of 
employees on the lock gates at Gatun as 46 white men and 193 black 
men. making a total of 239. (See p. 205, “Copies of letters from 
United States files.”) This list of employees is shown below: 


Superintendent of erection- 1 

General foreman erection- 1 

Foreman steel yard-.- 1 

Foreman erection (east chamber)- 1 

Foreman erection (west chamber)- 1 

Leading men riveters- 2 

Leading men on erection- 5 

Leading man machinist- 1 

Leading man electrician_ 1 

Leading man water-tight work_ 1 

Tool-room keepers- 2 

Machinist^- 4 

Electricians- 2 

Blacksmiths and tool dressers (black men)- 3 

Chippers and calkers- 4 

Bridgemen on erection- 7 

Cranemen_ 2 

Signalmen_ 2 

Carpenters_ 2 

Gauge machine riveters, four men to gang_ 9 

Gangs hand riveters, five men to gang_ 2 

Blacks, as helpers, bolters, reamers, and laborers_150 


In a report of Mr. Jewel, dated December 31, 1911, giving the 
distribution of the work at that time (see p. 117, “Letters copies 
from U. S. files”) it appears that 2 per cent of the tonnage was 
erected in December, 1911; that the total erected to December 31, 
1911, was 8.5 per cent of the whole; that the percentage of holes 
reamed to that date was 5.5 per cent, and the percentage of rivets 
driven to that date was 4.4 per cent of the whole. On May 2, 1912, 
























McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 367 

Mr. Jewel addressed the following letter to the chairman and chief 
engineer (see p. 93, “Letters copies from U. S. files”) : 

I hand you herewith report on the lock-gate work completed during the month 
of April. 

The amount of material erected during the past month is at least 2,000 touts 
lower than it would have been except for a shortage in material, which affected 
all erection crews except the first crew working on the upper level at Gatun. 

Practically all of the material which was lost on the Moldegaard and re¬ 
manufactured under other contract numbers was delayed in delivery here, on 
account of bad weather at the Itankin plant prohibiting the painting, inspection, 
and acceptance of this material there. The same cause applied to other material 
to a greater or less extent. There has also been considerable delay in loading 
vessels at Baltimore on account of the longshoremen’s strike there. 

The Nordpol, now discharging, however, and the Belasco en route from 
Baltimore, are expected to supply all deficiency in material at Pedro Miguel 
and also furnish enough material for the lower level at Gatun, so that all the 
erection bridges can be worked to their capacity after the delivery of these 
two cargoes. 

In an inclosure accompanying this letter, quoted on page 94, 
“ Copies of letters from U. S. files,” is a statement showing the dis¬ 
tribution and totals of work accomplished at that time. From this 
report 2,646 tons of steel was erected in April, 1912, or 4.56 per cent 
of the whole, and 13,862 tons was the total that had been erected to 
that date, or 23.90 per cent of the whole. Eeports of reaming and 
drilling show that 2.96 per cent of the reaming was done in April, 
and 15.25 per cent of the total had been done at that time. Of the 
riveting, 2.36 per cent was done for the month of April, and 11.63 
per cent of the total was done. At this time Mr. Jewel had been en¬ 
gaged on the work for considerably more than one year. He had 
been erecting steel for a little more than 11 months. The progress 
that he had inade was clearly not such as to justify the conclusion 
that he would be able to complete the work within anything like the 
time provided for in the contract after allowing additional time for 
all the delays he might be entitled to under the terms of the contract. 

During the time Mr. Jewel was in charge of the work he expended 
$668,107 for the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. on the lock 
gates and other small contracts with the Commission. The extent 
to which he made expenditures on other contracts is not specifically 
shown in the statement of the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. 
showing the cash transactions with Mr. Jewel as taken from their 
ledger. The greater proportion of it was spent in the work of con¬ 
structing the lock gates. 

The amount of cash that was expended by Mr. Sterrett subsequent 
to August 21,1912, in the completion of the lock gates and other work 
was $2,852,606.19. 

The expenditures by Mr. Jewel and Mr. Sterrett combined on work 
other than the lock gates was $88,082,92. (See vol. 27 of evidence, 

Eoutine Data.) __ 

Stated generally the expenditures of Mr. Sterrett were more than 
four times as great as the expenditure of Mr. Jewel. The period of 
service of the two managers was relatively the same. 

Mr. Jewel had prepared an estimate of erection upon which the 
bid of the Contractor was based. His estimate of the total cost of item 
No. 1 was $15.04 per ton, with 17 per cent of labor charges added for 
office expenses and 164 per cent of labor charges added for rigging, 
supplies, and transportation. (See vol. 11, Exhibit No. 1.) In Mr. 
Goldmark’s report there is a blue print showing the force employed by 


368 


McCLTNTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


the Contractor on the lock-gate material compiled from inspectors’ 
reports under the old and under the new management. From the 
evidence quoted from and referred to above it is clear that under 
Mr. Jewel’s management the necessary erection force and necessary 
employees had not been obtained and properly organized to prose¬ 
cute the work, independently of any action of the inspectors, so as 
to complete the work within the time provided for under the terms 
of the original contract, after making allowance for all additional 
time to which the Contractor would have been entitled under its terms. 
A very considerable proportion of the expense incurred in rushing 
the work at the end so as to comply with the dates fixed in the sup¬ 
plemental contract may therefore properly be charged to the Con¬ 
tractor in the settlement of this claim. 

In a letter from Mr. Jewel to the McClintic-Marshall Construction 
Co., dated August 19, 1911, attached to the Contractor’s brief, we find 
this statement: 

AVe are still receiving upstream sheathing plates uncurved. I may have 
neglected calling attention to this point sooner, but was under the impression 
from some source that you were curving all the end sheathing plates in the 
shop after the first leaves. These plates coming here straight is one of our 
worst sources of dela.’y and expense, and at least the heavy plates, i. e., over 
the air chamber, should be curved at the shop before shipping. 

On September 5, 1911, Mr. Jetvel wrote the following letter to the 
Contractor (see Contractor's brief) : 

Four pintle castings were shipped on April 8 and checked against leaves 
Nos. 37 to 40. These have been received and used as assigned. 

Four were shipped on June 1G and checked against leaves Nos. 33 to 36, in¬ 
clusive. These have been received and used in leaves Nos. 50 to 53. 

Six were shipped on July 20 and checked against leaves Nos. 50 and 51 
and 29 to 32, inclusive. These should have been on steamship Santana now at 
dock, but by some means missed the boat. AVe need them badly, as the bottom 
girders for C 4847 ought to be fitted with castings now, and unless they are so 
fitted we will lose ten days to two weeks on erection when we start. 

AVe have enough reaction castings to last for months. Please get this busi¬ 
ness lined up so we will not be uelayed in future for castings. 

Operations on the Pacific division are practically at a standstill for want 
of material—principally water-tight frames and one water-tight diaphragm, 
AV B 6 R. AVe may find these on the Santona , as some material is still to come 
off, but even if we do it looks bad at this late day to be holding up work for 
our own structural material. That over 10,000 tons is on the Isthmus doesn’t 
make it look any better. 

It is impossible, on account of the distance from the shop, to check material 
ahead and keep you lined up. AA’e can simply depend upon you to get out and 
ship as required, because probably 3,000 tons is always en route. 

Mixing material for both divisions in the same cargo has already cost us 
several thousand dollars, and in spite of protests and promises, the shipping 
memorandums for both keep coming merrily on. Unless you have arranged 
to separate it at Baltimore it will cost us several thousand more. 

In a letter to Mr. JeAvel of September 15, 1911, attached to the 
brief of the Contractor, it is stated: 

AVe inclose herewith copy of letter from Ala.]*. F. C. Boggs, dated September 
8, and copy of our reply to the same, both of which need no comment. It seems 
that we are falling very far behind on the erection, and we will be obliged to 
push this work from now on in the field with all possible dispatch. 

A\*e realize that you have been delayed on account of the AAJieeling Mold & 
Foundry Co. material and water-tight frames, which, as you know is largely 
due to the delay by the Government in furnishing us full and complete informa¬ 
tion, and the delays in securing the approval of the details at the start. 

It is up to us, however, to make up this lost time, and we trust that you will 
get your end of the work going in good shape without further delay. 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 369 

In a letter of January 29, 1912, from Mr. Jewel to Mr. Henry 
Goldmark, attached to brief of the Contractor, it is stated: 

Replying to your letter of January 25, in regard to painting the inside of 
leaves, beg to advise that this matter will have our careful and prompt atten¬ 
tion. It is a pity that this steel must stand so long before being able to put 
the leaves through a preliminary test and give them a final coat of paint. We 
as yet do not know how long it will be before satisfactory manhole covers can 
be secured for the water-tight diaphragms, but will watch the insides of these 
particular leaves and have them cleaned and repainted where any extensive 
corrosion promises to start. 

In this letter, as in other letters attached to the brief of the Con¬ 
tractor, frequent reference is made to the fact that the work was 
being delayed by the nonreceipt of the manhole covers with the gaskets 
so that they could be installed. These letters indicate that there were 
also many delays for which the contractor was responsible and which 
caused increased expense, independently of any delays that were 
caused by the action of the Isthmian Canal Commission. As here¬ 
tofore pointed out it was not possible under the terms of the original 
contract to set off the delays due to the fault of the Contractor against 
the delays caused by the Isthmian Canal Commission in the allowance 
of additional time when making the supplemental contract, and as 
such delays were undoubtedly the proximate cause of a considerable 
proportion of the rush work and increased expense in conforming to 
the dates fixed in the supplemental contract, it is but fair, just, and 
equitable to charge against the contractor such reasonable proportion 
of the claimed extra expense for rush work at Miraflores as will 
result in his bearing a just proportion of the extra expenses due to 
causes not taken into consideration in the making of the supple¬ 
mental contract S 

As heretofore shown, there were delays caused by the Isthmian 
Canal Commission in the change of the specifications relative to the 
size of the subpunched and subdrilled holes, and also delays due to 
the excessive amount of grinding and also to the excessive amount 
of cleaning, to the w ater in the locks, and to conditions of the yards 
subsequent to the making of the supplemental agreement, w hich re¬ 
sulted in increased expenditures in order to complete the gates 
within the time specified in this agreement. 

For further reference to the evidence, see contractor’s brief, pages 
141 to 147, inclusive. 

In determining the cost at which the work should have been done 
at Miraflores under the conditions as they existed, the claim of the 
Contractor, exclusive of rush work, has been reduced by 57.68 per 
cent, or to $73,195. The items constituting the $73,195 to be de¬ 
ducted as excess at Miraflores, heretofore considered and allowed, 
are as shown in the table below: 



Amount to be 
aeducted. 

Page reference 
of report. 

p Ay ,a if iati of vorH q qtiH f rflfiks ..... 

*5,226.00 
5,000.00 
26,184.20 
4,785.00 
12,000.00 
14,000.00 
6,000.00 

292 to 306 
306 to 323 
323 to 328 
329 to 367 
367 to 403 
405 to 430 








73,195.20 


29249°—H. Doc. 906, 64-1-24 


















370 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


The same reduction in the amount claimed for rush work wofiid 
leave $60,092 to be deducted for rush work in arriving at the cost 
at Miraflores which the Contractor should bear. On this basis the 
total excess to be deducted would be $73,195 plus $60,092, or $133,287. 
The total expense at Miraflores was $911,259. This minus the ex¬ 
cess would leave $777,972 as the cost that should be borne by the 
Contractor at Miraflores. This divided by 17,752 tons would give 
$43,824 as the cost per ton that should be charged to the Contractor 
at Miraflores. It is believed that this division of the excess claimed 
by the Contractor on page 75 of his claim, when applied to Gatun 
and Pedro Miguel, would result in a fair, equitable, and just distribu¬ 
tion of the excess cost between the Contractor and the Isthmian 
Canal Commission. 

On this basis, when worked out as shown in the Contractor’s claim, 
the cost per ton at each lock to be charged to the Contractor would be 
as follows: 


Per ton. 

Miraflores_$43,824 

Pedro Miguel, $43,824 plus 10 per cent, or__ 48. 206 

Gatun, $43,824 plus 10 per cent, or_ 48. 206 

The excess per ton would be: 

Miraflores, $51.332—$43.824_ $7. 51 

Pedro Miguel, $59.366—$48.206_11.16 

Gatun, $53.870—$48.206_ 5. 66 

Applying this cost per ton as the excess chargeable to the Commis¬ 
sion, the amounts would be as follows: 

Gatun, 25,498 tons, at $5.66 per ton_$144, 318 

Pedro Miguel, 14,924 tons, at $11.16 per ton_ 166, 551 

Miraflores, 17,752 tons, at $7.51 per ton- 133, 317 


Total_ 

To the above sum should be added the proportion of trans¬ 
portation, liability, and general expense arrived at as shown 
on page 85 of the claim, as follows: 

391.891 X 444,186 _ 

3,170,007 ~- 

Total___ 

It is recommended that $499,098 be allowed on claim 6. 


444,186 


54, 912 
499, 098 


Claim 7.—Extra cost of erection outfit. 

On page 67 of the Contractor’s claim he states this claim as 
follows: 

7. Extra cost of erection outfit required to complete tlie work within the time 
demanded, $200,000. 

On page 86 of his claim the Contractor gives the way in which he 
seeks to establish the validity of this claim, as follows: 

The total cost of equipment and tools for this work, less the salvage, was 
about $400,000. As closely as we can figure nearly twice as much equipment 
and more than twice the number of small tools, bolts, and washers were used 
than would have been required had it been possible to carry on the erection 
without resorting to the rush work necessary to complete the work on time to 
suit the Commission’s requirements. The cost chargeable to the Commission 
is one-half of $400,000, or $200,000. 





























McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


371 


An examination of the books of the Contractor shows the cost of 
all the field orders for Panama equipment and the credits allowed 
by the Contractor for equipment returned and sold, as follows (see 
vol. 27) : 


Field 

order. 


Description. 


Amount. 


78 

79-1 

79-2 

79-3 

79-4 

80 

81 

82 

83 

87 

88 
89 
92 
94 
97 

102 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 
108-A 

109 

111 

113 

115 

118 

119 

126 

127 

128 

129 

130 

131 

132 


Compressors, motors, etc. 

Steel falsework, scaffolding, and bridges. 

-do. 

-do. 

-do. 

Heavy locomotive cranes. 

Horizontal reamers. 

Pneumatic tools. 

Electric fittings. 

All tools, equipment, and supplies not included in other field orders. 

Field bolts for lock gates. 

High-speed steel tools for reaming and drilling. 

2 electric tool driven grinders. 

Rivet heating plant. 

1 bottom section for crane No. 18. 

One 50-ton locomotive crane No. 20. 

24-inch Schumacher-Boyle lathe and 5 horsepower motor. 

32 chain blocks, 8 tons capacity. 

Two 3,000-gallon tanks. 

2 “A” frame derricks for erection of C-5269. 

2 erection bridges. 

.do. 

Additional small tools. 

One 50-ton locomotive crane No. 21. 

2 erection bridges. 

4 duplex, 2-stage compressors, four 100-horsepower motors, 4 vertical air receivers, 
and 4 bolts. 

2 national No. 1 bolt cutters, direct-motive drive. 

Erection tools, contracts 5461, 5463, 5467. 

Two 100-horsepower motors. 2 air compressors, 2 air reamers, and 2 belts. 

Rivet and bolt making machines, etc. 

3 Ingersoll-Rand compressors, 3 air reamers, three 100-horsepower motors, and 3 belts. 

Additional pneumatic tools. 

Additional electric supplies. 

Additional miscellaneous tools. 

1 Ingersoll-Rand compressor. 


19,525. 78 
30,813.16 
30,224.88 
6,650.97 
10,389.48 
19,266.07 
23,449. 84 
93,269.36 
31,412. 47 
156,379.27 
71,481.09 
3,449.82 
4,239.37 
2,000. 87 
271.35 
10,767. 72 
1,420.57 
5,466.67 
215.00 
191.06 
7,144.42 
14,094.05 
5,315.45 
10,500.00 
6,960. 72 

9,332.17 
949.26 
250.19 
3,933.12 
4,630.63 
7,360.61 
21,532.55 
5,906.22 
50,169.02 
2,347.11 


Total credits for equipment returned 


662,120.32 
237, 674.55 


424,445.77 


The difference between this amount and amount shown on our statement of 
cost is due to equipment disposed of after that statement was made up. 

The credit for equipment returned is represented by the amount received by 
us from the sale of part of the equipment and the value to us for the equipment 
which we could use in our erection department in the States. Any equipment 
which could not be disposed of or used by us was considered of no value. 

This statement was prepared by the auditor of the McClintic- 
Marshall Construction Co., Mr. E. j. Patterson. Mr. Patterson made 
the following affidavit as to the correctness of this and other data that 
he furnished: 

Rankin, Pa., May 1, 1915. 

I, E. J. Patterson, do solemnly swear that in the examination of the books 
of the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. in the claim of the said company 
under the act of June 24, 1914, made by B. H. Harrah, a member of the Com¬ 
mission to investigate said claim, that the data furnished is taken from the 
original entries in the books of said company, and that the statements made 
by me in connection with such data are true to the best of my knowledge and 
belief, so help me God. 

E. J. Patterson. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1st day of May, A. D. 1915. 

B. F. Harrah, 

Assistant Auditor for the Panama Canal 
and Member of Commission to Investigate the Claims 

of the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. 






















































372 McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 

In a letter of December 29, 1914, calling upon the McClintic-Mar- 
shall Construction Co. to furnish a statement of the total expendi¬ 
tures under the contract, the following specific request was made 
relative to the equipment: 

8. If an inventory was taken as to equipment on hand at the beginning of 
the work on the lock-gate contract and to be used in connection with such con¬ 
tract, you should furnish a statement showing the value of the equipment as 
taken upon such inventory. If new equipment was purchased subsequent to 
the taking of this inventory, the amount and character of it should be shown. 
If an inventory was taken as to the equipment on hand at the completion of 
the lock-gate contract and the value of such equipment estimated, you should 
furnish copy of such inventory. 

Reply by the Contractor was made to this letter and this specific 
request March 26, 1915. (See Exhibit No. 26, vol. 26 of the evi¬ 
dence.) In this letter the Contractor stated, in relation to the re¬ 
quest made in paragraph 8 above quoted, that: 

Your request No. 8 we will be unable to furnish, as to inventory was kept. 

The evidence establishes the fact that the total expenditures for 
equipment was $662,120.32 and that the Contractor has credited this 
account with $237,674.55, leaving as the actual expenditures claimed 
to have been made for equipment $424,445.77. The credits shown 
represent the proceeds of such equipment as was sold and the value 
the Contractor placed on the equipment that w r as returned. As the 
Contractor was unable to furnish any inventory of the equipment, it 
was impossible to accurately verify the correctness of the credits to 
this account, although it did appear that the credits in the account 
were made in the usual course of business and in the usual way in 
which the Contractor made such credits in other cases in his book¬ 
keeping system. 

The estimate of Mr. S. P. Mitchell for equipment was as follows 
(see p. 263 of this report) : 

Erection materials (including erection bridges, bolts, and other items 


of material not included in plant)_$160,000 

Use and depreciation of erection plant_ 147, 000 


It will be noted that the total of these two items is $307,000. 

(For original estimates see vol. 33 of the testimony.) 

Mr. Mitchell also puts in an item of $300,000 to cover contingencies. 
Of course, this item of contingencies would apply and would be used 
to take care of any extra or excessive expenditures and would not 
necessarily be applied wholly to make up unforeseen losses on equip¬ 
ment. If the Contractor should be allowed the same percentage on 
this claim that has been allowed on the claim for labor, the excess 
for which the Commission should assume responsibility would be 
about $85,000. If an allowance of $85,000 should be made to the 
Contractor for excess equipment purchased in complying with the 
contract and the equipment account credited with this sum, it would 
show the cost of equipment chargeable to the Contractor to be 
$339,445.77. This is but $32,445 in excess of the amount estimated 
to be necessary by Mr. S. P. Mitchell. The Contractor's estimate for 
erection expenses that would come under the head of equipment wa? 
but $164,000. (See original estimate of the Contractor, vol. 11, Ex¬ 
hibit No. 1.) This was clearly inadequate. 

It is believed that an allowance of $75,000 on the item of equip¬ 
ment, in view of the uncertainty as to the value of the equipment 




McCLINTIC-MARSTIALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


373 


that was returned after the work was completed and in view of the 
fact that no inventory was kept and that no better check can be 
made of this account than as heretofore shown, is all that would 
be justified in the present state of the record. In making this allow¬ 
ance your committee realizes that the excessive demands that were 
made upon the Contractor in connection with the grinding, the diffi¬ 
culties in riveting, and the bolting up of the small holes, and the 
necessity for completing the work rapidly, which in part resulted 
from the action of the Isthmian Canal Commission, all tended to 
very materially affect expenditures for equipment. It is not be¬ 
lieved, however, that the action of the Isthmian Canal Commission 
in connection with the performance of this contract resulted in ex¬ 
penditures for equipment in excess of those that should be borne by 
the Contractor of more than $75,000, as heretofore found. 

An allowance of $75,000 is recommended on claim 7. 

This concludes the examination of all the claims, except such part 
of claim 3 as should be allowed for the weight of excess rivets cut 
out. (See p. 216 of this report for statement of claim.) 

The estimate of cut-outs made at Miraflores was 165,772. This 
is about 44 per cent of the total number of cut-outs that the Contrac¬ 
tor claims. This percentage of reduction in the number of cut-outs 
claimed at Gatun and Pedro Miguel and the number increased by 
about 30 per cent to cover the difference between the conditions as 
they existed at Miraflores and the other two lock sites would show 
the number of cut-outs to be between 1,000,000 and 1,200,000. The 
Contractor admits that 6 per cent of all cut-outs should be charged 
to him. In settling the claim it has been found that he should be 
charged with three-eighths of the excess cost of riveting by reason 
of the fact that he failed to make any claim under the terms and 
conditions of the contract, and placed it beyond the power of the 
Commission, by reason of the failure to make such claim, to in any 
way minimize the loss which he now claims was suffered by reason 
of the excess cut-outs. 

Applying these factors in making a reasonable estimate, which is 
the best that can be done with this particular claim, it is thought that 
the Commission should assume the responsibility for 300,000 pounds 
in weight of the rivets cut out. The price fixed for the material, less 
its scrap value, is $35 per ton. (See p. 247 of this report.) The 
allowance for the value of rivet material as here found will be made 
as a part of claim 3, and the exact figure will be found on page 247 
of this report. 

On page 47 of the Contractor’s claim he states that— 

The Contractor’s crane No. 18, about July 3, 1911, was completely wrecked 
by a gravel train operated by the Commission. The crane was repaired by the 
Commission at the Gorgona shops, but the Contractor lost the use of it for 98 
days, delaying the Contractor’s work. For this time of 98 days the Contractor 
rendered the Commission a bill for $1,960. The bill was not paid. The use 
of the crane for the 98 days it was being repaired was worth far more to the 
Contractor than the amount of the bill. 

The facts as stated by the Contractor in relation to this claim are 
substantially correct. The Contractor did render a bill for the use 
of the crane, but this bill was not paid. It is doubtful, however, 
whether his claim is one that comes within the meaning of the act 
of Congress, June 24,1914, authorizing an investigation of the claims 


374 


McCLINTIC-MARSITALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 


of the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co. The crane was wrecked 
at Miraflores on July 3, 1911. and subsequently repaired by the 
Commission at Gorgona Shops, the repairs being completed October 
28, 1911. The bill is for the use of such crane for 98 days at $20 
per day. Mr. Williamson states that he thinks this amount is ex¬ 
cessive. (See letter of Nov. 10, 1911, file 84-C-81.) Mr. Jewel, how¬ 
ever, states that he had paid without question on his work for the 
use of Commission cranes of the same class at the rate of $80 per day. 
Crane service was an important item in the construction of the lock 
gates, and it is believed that $20 a day was not an unreasonable de¬ 
mand to make for the loss of the use of this crane. 

It is recommended that the claim be allowed. 

On page 86 of the Contractor's claim we find this statement: 

N. B.—An additional claim covering interest charges on account of deferred 
payments will be presented in detail as soon as it can be compiled. 

This claim was presented by the Contractor under date of October 
4, 1915. 

It has never been the policy of the Government of the United 
States to pay interest on claims against it. It is presumed that the 
Government pays proper claims against it promptly when the proper 
evidence is submitted to substantiate such claims, and all parties 
entering into contracts with the Government do so with the knowl¬ 
edge of this public policy on the part of the Government. Claims 
for interest are universally disallowed, except in cases where there 
is an express provision in the contract to pay interest, or except in 
cases where Congress has specifically authorized the payment of in¬ 
terest. In the absence of a specific provision in the act of June 24, 
1914, authorizing the payment of interest it is not believed that 
Congress intended that such a claim should be entertained by virtue 
of the authority therein conferred. 

No recommendation is therefore made upon the claim for interest. 

The specific claims made by the Contractor and the action recom¬ 
mended by your committee thereon are shown in the following 
summary: 



Amount 
claimed. 

Amount 

allowed. 

Difference. 

Claim 1, extra cost of drawings. 

Claim 2, increased cost of fabrication. 

Claim 3, rejected material. 

Claim 4, extra cost of water stops. 

Claim 5, loss of shop output. 

Claim 6, extra cost of erection.. 

Claim 7, extra cost of erection outfit. 

Total. 

$8,890.00 
320,892.00 
48,621. 00 
21,999. 75 
123.660.00 
1,218,475.00 
200,000. 00 

$5,580.00 
77.264.64 
10,500.00 
21,094.75 
23,510.00 
499,098.00 
75,000.00 

$3,310.00 
243,627.36 
38,121. 00 
905.00 
100,150.00 
719,377.00 
125,000.00 

1,942,537.75 

712,047.39 

1,230,490.36 



The following table indicates the probable loss suffered by the Con¬ 
tractor : 


Total payments-----$5, 676,162. 96 

Total actual and estimated expenditures_ 8, 481, 222. 00 

Total apparent loss to Contractor_ 2, 805, 059. 04 























McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 375 

The table below shows the Contractor’s apparent loss under his 
estimate, including profits: 

Total Contractor’s estimate_$5, 678, 457 

Total cost, Contractor’s estimate_ 8, 481, 222 

Total loss, Contractor’s estimate_ 2, 802, 765 

The table below shows the total of the Contractor’s apparent loss, 
original claim, and difference not included in the original claim: 

Total apparent loss_$2, 802, 765. 00 

Original claim_ 2, 047, 267. 75 

Difference not included in claim_ 755, 497. 25 

The total amount of the revised claim is $1,942,537.75. The 
amount recommended for payment in this report is $712,047.39. 
The amount of the Contractor’s revised claim not allowed is $1,230,- 
490.36. The difference not claimed in revised claim, based on actual 
payments and Contractor’s actual and estimated expenditures, is 
$862,521.29. 

Under this settlement, the apparent loss which seems to be prop¬ 
erly and rightly chargeable to the Contractor is $2,093,011.65, or the 
difference between the total apparent loss to Contractor, $2,805,- 
059.04 (difference between total payments and total actual and esti¬ 
mated expenditures), and the total amount allowed in this report, 
$712,047.39. Such loss, however, will be further reduced by the 
amount heretofore allowed for the use of the crane, but not in¬ 
cluded in the statement above. 

As far as your committee can determine from the evidence this 
part of the loss sustained bv the Contractor was due to his low bid, 
his inexperience in the character of the work undertaken, the unusual 
conditions under which the work was required to be performed, 
and bad management in connection with the fulfillment of the 
contract. 

The remainder of the loss to the Contractor, it is believed, re¬ 
sulted from his being required to do higher class work at more 
expense than was reasonably contemplated under the specifications, 
and also such loss as was occasioned by excessive demands of the 
Commission’s engineers and inspectors which did not benefit the 
work to any appreciable extent. 

There are two classes of losses which the Contractor has sustained 
in this case. First is the loss to the Contractor due to performing 
work which benefited the gates; the other is the loss to the Contractor 
which was of no benefit to the work. 

In Mr. Goldmark’s opinion he got as good riveting as could be— 
as good as he ever got. (See vol. 8, p. 194, of his testimony.) He 
shows (vol. 7, p. 145 of Wolf el’s testimony) that the first gates were 
better chan he thought they would be Avhen tested. 

On page 197 of his testimony, volume 8, Mr. Goldmark states: 

I think we got the best gates in the world. I Mi ink the workmanship could 
not be improved upon. 

After discussing the question to some extent and stating what was 
done, Mr. Goldmark made this statement (see p. 199, vol. 8) : 

I will say I think we went about as far as we could go under the contract 
in -what we asked. 










376 


McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION CO. 




He did state before that, hoAvever, that he did not think that he 
was going beyond what could be asked reasonably under the con¬ 
tract. 

The specifications contained Aery feiv limitations, and it Avas 
largely a question of individual judgment all through the Avork 
as to Avhat should be considered first-class workmanship. It is be¬ 
lieved by your committee that the work was first-class and that 
in the final result the Isthmian Canal Commission got better work 
than it Avas entitled to under the specifications, as draAvn, arid 
that it in part received a benefit for the alloAvance recommended 
herein. 

To the extent to Avhich the Commission received better work under 
the contract than it was entitled to, the Contractor has an equitable 
claim for the value of such work. To the extent to which the 
Contractor suffered loss by reason of the excessiA 7 e demands and 
interference with the work b}^ the Isthmian Canal Commission’s in¬ 
spectors and engineers, it has an equitable claim under the act of 
June 24, 1914. It is belie\ T ed that the equity betAveen the Contractor 
and the Government will be properly adjusted by a total payment 
equal to the sum of the amounts recommended in this report on 
specific claims, as follows: 

Classified claims 1 to 7 inclusive (seven hundred twelve thousand 

forty-seven dollars and thirty-nine cents)_$712,047.39 

Claim for loss of use of crane while being repaired, 98 dayg at 

$20 per day (one thousand nine hundred sixty dollars)_ 1,960,00 


Total payment recommended___1 714, 007. 39 

Respectfully submitted. 

H. IT. Rousseau, 
Chairman of Committee, 
Engineer of Terminal Construction. 

II. A. A. Smith, 

Member of C ommittee, 

Auditor . 

B. F. Harrah, 

Member of C ommittee, 
Special Counsel and Examiner of Claims. 


The above report in detail, findings, and recommendations are 
approA 7 ed. 


Geo. W. Goethals, 

Major General (formerly Colonel ), 

Governor , the Panama Canal . 


o 



































































































































































* 
































































































































































































